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

Politics & Elections
402

NY Times gifted article:

Quote in a nutshell: “Colorado’s top court ruled on Tuesday that former President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding office again because he engaged in insurrection with his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol, an explosive ruling that is likely to put the basic contours of the 2024 election in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Pretty likely this goes to the Supremes in an expedited fashion (along with several other expedited requests), but Trump is off the Colorado State ballot if there is no overruling by 4 January. This won’t matter specifically since Colorado has consistently voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in recent elections. That said, it could influence other states.

The Colorado Supreme Court justices reversed a lower court finding, which essentially said that "while Trump was guilty of insurrection, that the constitution’s 14th amendment section 3 did not apply to the presidency (for reasons). In other words, Colorado Supreme Court held that 14th, section 3 did actually apply to the presidency. Most likely THE Supremes will weigh in.

Interesting times. Maybe, finally, the adults in the room will rule “you can’t do that shit” to DJT. Stay tuned.

403

Okay, but if that argument is put forward, it’s about presidential immunity implying that no insurrection occurred, it has nothing to do with the question of whether the presidency is an “office” covered by the 14th amendmend.

404

Yep, but:

Assumes facts not in evidence.

405

fyi This is already being actively discussed with over 75 posts in the “Trump is Disqualified From Office” thread.

406

@Aspenglow Perhaps this thread title should be modified to incorporate the Colorado Supreme Court ruling? I had searched before starting a new thread, and it was not obvious that this thread addressed the latest news.

407

The ruling is long and posted here. On page 33: As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is “a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process” that “permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.”

Let’s see if Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch (same guy who is all about State’s rights), agrees with himself as Judge Gorsuch. In other words, that Colorado should interpret the laws of Colorado and not the Supremes. Can o’ worms.

408

I agree, that’s a good idea. I’ll fix it. :slight_smile:

409

The president isn’t a king. He doesn’t have sovereign immunity.

410

Though there is a chance SCOTUS won’t overturn this, that chance seems exceedingly small to me, even if Gorusch has to disagree with Gorusch and the two come to blows.

411

I heard one story (sorry, no link) that it might even extend as far as not allowing them to count write-in votes. Yeah, that’s taking things a bit too far.

412

After a few beers he deliberately antagonizes himself by spelling his name wrong, it’s just disrespectful.

413

I don’t see how that’s “too far” when the entire premise is that he’s ineligible for the office and thus could not assume the presidency regardless of how many people voted for him. Votes cast for him would be equivalent to votes case for Taylor Swift, who’s too young to be eligible. Would you expect them to be tallied?

414

Not at all. A bill of attainder is a retroactive statute, imposing criminal liability on an individual.

Here, the legal standard was added to the Constitution over 150 years ago. It does not impose criminal liability on anyone, or on anyone specifically. It sets one of the qualifications for being president.

The argument is that the Secretary of State of a state can make the initial determination whether a proposed candidate meets the constitutionally required qualifications. That determination would be subject to judicial review.

415

I think that’s an ex post facto law, not the same thing.

416

That an ex post facto law, not a bill of attainder.

417

I’ve helped with ballot counting. We counted all the write-ins, including those for Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse (and yes, we did get them).

418

That doesn’t explain why you think it would be going “too far” to not count them.

419

Thank you for expanding on your thoughts on the matter.

They are biased. I agree with you that they will uphold the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, but perhaps for different reasons. I do think the dictator talk won’t help Trump, but that’s not the reason. However, it will be a nice side benefit.

No constitutional scholar me (or even a lawyer), but here’s my reasoning:

This SCOTUS is struggling hard with a legitimacy problem. John Roberts will be grateful for an opportunity to issue a landmark ruling that uplifts their cred.

The standard must be consistent across all 50 states and based on federal law, so this is a proper matter for SCOTUS to decide.

There are novel issues at play.

It’s a 4-3 ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court and there are other states dealing with these concerns, so creating a consistent standard is imperative.

The 14th Amendment is clear in its language. Trump falls squarely within the definition of someone who is “constitutionally prohibited from assuming office.” In my view, that’s the real ruling to be made here. The question before the SCOTUS is whether Trump falls within the definition of constitutional prohibition.

With that in mind, I think they can reconcile Gorsuch’s previous ruling with one that upholds the Colorado Supreme Court’s: Yes, Trump falls within the definition of being constitutionally prohibited; and yes, Colorado has the right to decide to keep Trump off the ballot based on that definition.

Roberts removes a bit of heat from his compromised SCOTUS, they get rid of Trump and they will uphold the Constitution with a strict interpretation of it – something they claim to be governed by.

Of course, they’re a shitty SCOTUS and I could be completely wrong.

420

A bill of attainder is a specific type of ex post facto:

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties ) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of people, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.

Arrainders are retroactive, imposing criminal liability on specific individuals.

Ex post facto prohibits retroactively creating new criminal offences, but those laws didn’t have to be aimed at specific individuals.

421

That definition certainly sound close to a government official stating a person was guilty of insurrection without a trial.