I am still absorbing the enormity of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that Trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot.
It was a long day, so forgive typing errors.
It seems to me that there was plenty of due process, Colorado law empowered its elections officer to determine qualification, and the elections officer did so.
I don't believe there has to a finding in criminal court that Trump engaged in insurrection for Section 3 to apply. . .
The reason is becuase of the heightened standard of proof in criminal matters (beyond a reasonable doubt). The standard is high because in criminal court, a person stands to lose life, liberty, or property. Before the government can take those away, the standard of proof must be beyond reasonable doubt.
The Colorado court found, after examining evidence and lots of due process, that there was an insurrection and Trump engaged in it. (So did a Congressional committee)
I also don't think that Congress needs to have enacted legislation. After all, we don't need legislation for "due process" or "equal protection" to apply (also in the 14th Amendment).
What is blowing my mind is imagining the consequences of the Supreme Court taking the case (I think they'll have to) and issuing a ruling.
I can't imagine a ruling that won't be . . . explosive* . . . one way or another.
@Teri_Kanefield Did you read Lawrence Lessig’s piece in Slate about this. He seems to think the question of whether article 3 applies to the President is a good reason for SCOTUS to overturn the Colorado decision. I can imagine they are looking for any reason not to have to rule on it, and failing that not to affirm it.
I didn't see it. My personal belief, which I can't prove, is that the president wasn't listed because they had the Civil War in mind and nobody considered a possibility in which the president could incite an insurrection against the government he was leading.
It's hard to imagine future possibilities and what happened wasn't predictable.
@Teri_Kanefield If they don’t simply punt it and say that each state can make its own determination, I would not be shocked if they uphold the ballot exclusion. Reason: they’ve made it clear they are not going to install a dictator, and this case finally gives them the opportunity to throw a dagger into him at no cost to their own lifetime tenure (“I came to bury Caesar, not to praise him”).
> I would not be shocked if they uphold the ballot exclusion.
It would be political suicide, if you believe they've been putting their thumb on the scale for the GOP the past few decades. Every state with a Democratic secretary of state would apply a 14th amd ballot exclusion to mangolini, depressing GOP turnout across the board. Even a state like California has some swingy congressional seats currently in GOP hands.
@mjf_pro@Teri_Kanefield
I'm trying to figure out what this means. Surely even if Trump gets on the ballot, the constitution says he is inelligible to be president again. So what happens if he wins the Republican nomination? Presumably merely winning a party nomination doesn't entitle him to be on the presidential ballot? AIUI political parties are just associations of citizens and have no constitutional significance.
@Teri_Kanefield Perhaps, though, if enough members of SCOTUS want to reverse the ruling they could decide that some kind of criminal conviction is required? I don't think they would go along with the lower court's idea that the president is somehow not an officer of the United States or his oath had the wrong words. But I don't think anyone knows what they will do.
@not2b@Teri_Kanefield Wasn’t the purpose of the 14th to prevent those who supported the Confederacy from taking office? Scores of those people were never tried or convicted of anything, it would have been an impossible task. So there’s no condition of conviction in the 14th, participating is enough and evidence of that can easily be provided by witnesses or otherwise.
@Teri_Kanefield I wonder if it might be safe to predict that some red states might decide from this to take Biden's name off the ballot? After all, he's being """""investigated""""" (have to put extra quotes on that hot mess) for "crimes" that his son allegedly committed which is totally his fault because of something something.
@Teri_Kanefield What concerns me is each day we see more and more judges actually willing to make openly biased decisions. Especially since a lot of courts were packed in many cases during Trump's term in particular. I'm just not sure that, at this stage of things, they might not actually do just that in one or two red states.
Unfortunately, we really are in a situation where every vote counts.
@Teri_Kanefield Correct, see 95% of Congressional Republicans voting against certifying the election and/or Impeachment for Jan 6th and thus violating their Oath of Office. NONE of them should be allowed to run for Public Office, and yet, here we are.
@Teri_Kanefield per your own analysis, to a degree regarding criminal illegality VS legality and supporting an insurrection , Breaking the Oath could easily be seen to disqualify for office. (I could see the case especially for a 'Military' Commander-In-Chief...). Just this Citizen's thoughts from CA tho (but as a public sector employee, I do take this seriously, many apparently don't) . ;)
@Teri_Kanefield
The south was always like that. This isn't a new development. There were always the laws on the books, and then the laws as they were enforced by the police/courts. Lynchings occurred whenever a court failed to dispose of an unwanted person. Don't like a politician? Shoot them.
@eva_chaos@Teri_Kanefield The North, too. We are only dealing with this guy because New York State spent decades failing to enforce laws on the books and refusing to investigate or prosecute wealthy fraudulent businessmen like Trump.
@richard_merren@eva_chaos@Teri_Kanefield and right now there are probably a thousand more like him that NY are refusing to hold accountable because of how rich & powerful they are...
@Teri_Kanefield@Vonskinnback@eva_chaos Fair question... I don't know whether anyone was asked to investigate and said "I refuse". But I don't think there is an argument that he was involved in many, many shady deals and activities and nobody who enforces to financial laws in that state (or the feds) seems to have asked questions like "are these forms accurate?" or "is this a real charity?" or "is this company a sham created only to evade taxes?" or "are these foreign funds legally obtained?"
@richard_merren@Teri_Kanefield@Vonskinnback
I remember reading years ago about a lawyer from NYC who represented CSA victims at no charge. I can't think of his name and I can't find him on the google, but I know he used to write comic books. He absolutely ripped into NY prosecutors who either wouldn't try a case at all, or worked out particularly offensive plea deals with sympathetic judges.
That's CSA, not financial crimes. That seems incredibly brazen to me.
If you are looking for a response from me (and you may not be) please go to my blog and read the criminal law FAQ page. You can find it under the "resources" tab of my menu.
Then read the series I have pinned on my blog beginning with "There are no yankees here"
@Teri_Kanefield The gop are yakking about how the "voters" should decide frumps legality to be on the ballot? Meanwhile the gop is subverting voting rights, womens rights, and spouting fascist crap.. They are treasonous criminals.
@mickymorse@Teri_Kanefield So, are they in favor of allowing Barack Obama to run for a 3rd term and letting the "voters" decide the legality of that, too?
@Teri_Kanefield I would offer that anyone who still actively supports any Republican candidate, and/or votes for them, is MAGA, whether they acknowledge it or not. And they are all guilty of terminal selfishness.
@Teri_Kanefield I predict they'll overturn on the technical language of the 14th amendment, with Alito and Thomas concurring that insurrection is good actually
@Teri_Kanefield I feel like it’s not just the hardcore MAGA Republicans that are the problem because more than just them will vote for Trump. At the cery least, Republicans both elected and voters should be speaking out against Trump for obvious, moral reasons but for 8 years they have been fine with the walking moral train wreck of a person Trump is.
@Teri_Kanefield so I'm curious on your opinion. What do you think is Best for democracy and the government in the long term?
Following the laws would please some people, but would push the Republican party even more extreme and drive that wedge decidedly further in.
Giving him a pass for the sake of peace and quiet is just permission to continue destroying our institutions.
I don't think the the decision should be made for political reasons, if that makes sense.
It is very difficult, though, to separate what people want to happen from what should happen under the law.
It seems to me that the last thing we want is states removing people from the ballots without due process and evidence at least that rises to the preponderance standard.
One question, for example, is whether Colorado's process comported with due process.
@Teri_Kanefield To be clear, this is the stance of every republican, not just the maga ones. It's just happening in spaces that affect more people, and they've dropped more of the mask.
@Teri_Kanefield It’s hard not to be sympathetic with the underlying grievances of the MAGA folks. When Republicans make economic policy the middle class looses out. When the Democrats make social policy the disadvantaged gain power and influence. Then they’re told their economic problems are tied to cultural issues. If I didn’t have the ability to see a bigger picture or saw others’s social gains as a lessening of mine, I might be disillusioned too.
@Teri_Kanefield Stuff like this feels odd to me because on one hand, I can imagine MAGA using this very tactic if it suited them. But since it is being done to them, they will likely frame it as some kind of anti-democratic sabotage. (Are we just going to let ONE state railroad an election for all fifty?!) Definitely feels like the sort of thing that one would feel very differently about depending on who one is.... The law is for protecting me and confining them, not vice versa, etc etc
@Teri_Kanefield if SCOTUS takes it, it will be because overturning it is a forgone conclusion. Otherwise if they have no intention of overturning it they will not take it to minimize the blowback hoping the CO court takes most of the heat.
My money is on the corrupt court overturning it in service to their benefactors.
This is a really good point and one that eluded me: lesser consequences mean a lower standard of proof may be reasonable. In this case, the only thing Trump is losing is a shot at a job he wants.
@Teri_Kanefield
I believe SCOTUS has been bought and paid for.
They will not disappoint their handlers.
Whatever the Koch's decide is what they will decide.
@Frankc1450 I would suggest that you go back and look at all of the cases the Supreme Court has decided since 2020 that involve Donald Trump, beginning with the election fraud cases.
Then read the series on my blog that begins "There are no yankees here" for the problems with the kind of statements you just made.
@Teri_Kanefield You're right, they have ruled against him, I'm thinking that maybe what the Kochs ( and others) want now. Because every other decision they've made has been really hard to justify.
@Teri_Kanefield my favorite part of it all is the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans raging about unelected judges making decisions like this. With Roe they cebrated sending it back to the states. But not like this! As has been said before they want to be protected by the law but not bound by it. Truly disgusting behavior.
@Teri_Kanefield
I'm in favor of trump being banned from running because he fomented an insurrection, but it seems to me that he should be proven guilty, of it, in court.
@MillardPhillmore It was this case. Go look at the procedure in the Colorado case (I don't have time right now) and then let me know.
If I recall, there was a proceeding at the district court under the election code. Evidence there was admitted.
If you find the decision, somewhere in the first few pages the Colorado Supreme Court should outline the procedural posture (how the case came about, what happened in the lower courts.)
I think Trump invited to intervene and present evidence.
@MillardPhillmore One reason this case is strong (and why advance predictions are difficult) is because so much depends on how it was handled in this state.
Colorado seems to have done a solid job.
The Supreme Court will have to offer the guidelines for how the section is enforced.
Sometimes they get it totally wrong, but there is no need for legislation to enforce other parts of the 14th Amendment.
I did polling work in 2022 because I was afraid people would be too scared to volunteer after what happened to some of those poll workers. (I am 63 and 5 feet tall, but I don't scare easily)
@MillardPhillmore There was also another case when people in Georia tried to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballot there, but the proceeding failed for lack of evidence.
There is a lot less evidence linking her to a crime than Trump.
@Teri_Kanefield What I love the most about this is that the insurrection is at this point undeniable. If they overturn, it won't be because they claim it's unclear whether he tried to stay in power or not.
We've collectively moved the ball quite a bit in this direction. I guess it wasn't but 6 months ago that some were still arguing that it wasn't an insurrection at all, but that argument has now gone by the boards.
@Teri_Kanefield So no need for due process then. Lets just find BS ways to get all candidates that don't support political ideology thrown off ballets so we can have the utopian leftist tyranny it seems the DNC clamors for. Lets hop the ship doesn't sink too bad and there is some middle class left before our government makes the cost of living for everyone except the left wing superrich unaffordable
@Teri_Kanefield Unfortunately these days all republicans are MAGA, whether by actions or complicity. There are no Good Germans here. Either they stand up to fascism or they’re part of it.
@Teri_Kanefield
Do we have precedent for how section 3 has been practically applied in the past? Did it previously require conviction? Or has this clause never been invoked to exclude someone who was trying to be on the ballot?
(Not presidential precedent, obviously, but since the scope of the clause is broader, there may be precedent for congressional candidates.)
Add comment