Does it matter if the federal supreme court allows Trump on the ballot or not?
From the Colorado SC's pdf:
• The district court did not err in concluding that the events at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an “insurrection.”
• The district court did not err in concluding that President Trump
“engaged in” that insurrection through his personal actions
Will the federal supreme court disagree with that part of the two lower court rulings? What reasoning could they possibly use? And if they agree, can additional legal proceedings be opened against those who participated in the insurrection, like against those congressmen and senators who Trump was calling on Jan 6 from his burner phone?
It looks like someone placed a baited trap near the federal SC's burrow entrance... am I wrong about this?
5th and 14th Amendment due process. Trump hasn't even been charged with the crime of insurrection, let alone convicted.
Due process was followed in Colorado. The case was an attempt to remove him from the ballot and the defense failed to prove that Trump had not "engaged in an insurrection" and or that the sitting president is not an officer of the US. So, the 14th, which protects against abuses by state-level government against individuals, isn't an issue. In no way did Colorado need to wait for a federal charge and conviction against Trump to complete. The state has the right to adjudicate its own laws and their own constitution, just as the loser in the case has the right to appeal to the federal courts in an attempt to overturn the state courts.
The 5th amendment due process won't be an issue until it enters the federal courts.
SCOTUS is can definitely rule that the Colorado courts erred concluding Trump committed a federal crime he hasn't been legally charged with. There's also the argument that it doesn't apply to POTUS's qualifications based on the wording of a section of the statute.
This is what I want popcorn for.... In order for SCOTUS to rule against the Colorado court findings, they need to go against the Jan 6th committee's evidence that the prosecution used in that case
and the lack of evidence used by the defense, or they need to refute the Colorado SC's ruling that "POTUS is an officer", which was based on...:
We do not place the same weight the district court did on the fact that the Presidency is not specifically mentioned in Section Three. It seems most likely that the Presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an “office.” In fact, no specific office is listed in Section Three; instead, the Section refers to “any office, civil or military.” True, senators, representatives, and presidential electors are listed, but none of these positions is considered an “office” in the Constitution. Instead, senators and representatives are referred to as “members” of their respective bodies.
That is razor-sharp... showing that the 14th didn't exclude the president because the POTUS isn't an officer, but that the 14th included the senators, congressmen, and electors because they were
not officers.
Every ethically-minded law-bender will have their critical eyes on how SCOTUS handles the case and I don't see SCOTUS's five conservatives lining up on the same side of the vote for the same reasons many conservative legal specialists and judges have been speaking about publicly.
Otherwise red states are going take Biden and Harris off the ballot for "engaging in" this little "insurrection" through their personal actions. If SCOTUS can't challenge Colorado, then they've tied their hands here.
Huh... that article doesn't have anything to do with Biden and Harris, and those riots probably didn't either, though I suspect both vocally supported the non-violent aspects of the protests. And any state that wants to take Biden/Harris off the ticket will need to follow due process, meaning they need to prosecute a case in court and supply evidence to support their case.
Remember the 62 election fraud cases which had no evidence and were lost?Also, let me throw in that Democrats don't believe in democracy and every accusation of disenfranchising voters is an admission. GOP didn't launch the first ballot nuke.
I'd agree that the small-"d" doesn't exist as much in the Democratic party as it should, but with Trump and his clones talking about replacing small-"d" with caplocks-"A" by replacing the 300 year old Constitution and curbing individual rights, etc; where do you think the independents will put their votes? Trump received many 2016 independent votes because he was an outsider and said he was going to drain the swamp. Now the independents know Trump just wanted to make the swamp his personal estate, and they are not happy with him or his cult. Trump will never have the same popular support again.