Various states, including Colorado, determine Trump is disqualified from holding office

[psychonaut]

The opening brief linked from that page is very enlightening. Two things in particular stand out: first, at the original trial, even Trump’s own lawyer generally agreed (or at least did not strenuously disagree) that the president is an officer of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Second, if the president is not an officer, then this opens the door to a great many more reinterpretations of the constitution:

Other constitutional provisions using the phrase “office under the United States” make clear that the phrase covers the Presidency. If the Presidency is not an “office . . . under” the United States, then a President could:

1. simultaneously serve as both President and as a member of Congress, U.S. Const. art. I, § 6;
2. accept emoluments or even titles of nobility from a foreign sovereign, U.S. Const. art. I, § 9;
3. hold office as President (but no other federal office) despite previously being impeached and removed from office, U.S. Const. art. I, § 3;
4. serve as a presidential elector in his own re-election, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; and
5. face a “religious Test” as a “Qualification” to his office, U.S. Const. art. VI.

[Toxgoddess]

Willam Becker of the Hill is also convinced Trump should be disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. . He summarizes efforts to date to remove Trump from state ballots. The Hill tends to lean conservative. The more on the disqualification bandwagon, the better!

[PhillyGuy]

Colorado Supreme Court - Oral Arguments Next Wednesday

A Denver District Court ruled Trump was eligible to be on the state’s presidential primary ballot in March, and that decision is what’s being appealed to the state Supreme Court, which will host oral arguments Wednesday, Dec. 6.

[JohnT]

!!!

Kaitlan Collins

[DavidNRockies]

For the second time this year, I may have piddled a little.

[not_what_you_d_expect]

Well, now it’s up to our very rotten SCOTUS. I’m not optimistic.

[DavidNRockies]

If I’m Donald Trump, I’m nervous AF.

Particularly if (no chance, really) they can shame Clarence Thomas into recusing.

[rocking_chair]

Here is the opinion. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

[MulderMuffin]

An article:

Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under...

The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday declared former President Donald Trump ineligible for the White House under the U.S. Constitution’s insurrection clause a…

Not much information here.

The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.

Bright side, this will force the Supreme Court to confront the situation and provide final guidance. I’m not sure they won’t take the out and disqualify him. A dictator doesn’t need a Court to tell him what to do or overrule his desires. Then they can throw up their hands and claim they really didn’t want to, but the law is the law and the Constitution is the law.

[Chingon]

I have no doubt this get reversed. I don’t see this harming him in any way, and in fact probably helps him.

[DavidNRockies]

CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT dissented.
JUSTICE SAMOUR dissented.
JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER dissented.

All seven were appointed by Democrats, and three dissented.

[JohnT]

Going to predict that the USSC declines to hear the case or rule in favor of Colorado, as I gotta get my “told you so’s” ready before anyone else.

[JohnT]

Being right is its own reward, but bragging is the icing on the cake

[iiandyiiii]

I expect SCOTUS to reverse it, though I’ll be rooting for an uphold. If SCOTUS really wants to play politics, they might reverse this one but give Jack Smith a win for the other one that was expedited that would help move the DC trial along - that way they could claim both “sides” got a win and therefore SCOTUS is still non partisan (it would be bullshit, but the DC media would love it).

[Whack-a-Mole]

I expect SCOTUS will say Trump cannot be denied a place on the ballot without first being convicted of insurrection.

Then they rule that the president cannot be held criminally liable for anything he did while in office.

Neat and tidy.

[Procrustus]

@iiandyiiii

I expect SCOTUS to reverse it, though I’ll be rooting for an uphold.

Same here. It’s quite a well reasoned opinion. But at well over 100 pages, Trump won’t get to the good parts.

[jsc1953]

@Whack-a-Mole

I expect SCOTUS will say Trump cannot be denied a place on the ballot without first being convicted of insurrection.

IANAL but…is there such a crime is “insurrection”?

The problem here is that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn’t bother defining the term, or how to identify those affected. Everybody knew that they were talking about The Late Unpleasantness Between the States and anybody who wore a grey uniform. They didn’t give any thought to applying it going forward.

[JohnT]

Pretty sure this counts as a court ruling that Trump did commit insurrection, for all those who needed a court ruling that Trump committed an insurrection.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I’d think the court would refer to a dictionary. As much as the supreme court likes to play with definitions as they were in the past I do not think the definition for “insurrection” has changed:

in·sur·rec·tion
/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections
a violent uprising against an authority or government.

[rocking_chair]

I’m looking forward to lutting and katyal presenting the argument at the Supreme Court.