https://freebeacon.com/democrats/marc-elias-makes-millions-off-democratic-gerrymandering-efforts/
For this article, I'd point out that the previous district map was found by the courts to have been gerrymandered, which is why it was being redrawn. Your news source didn't seem to point that out. And didn't the opposing lawyers get paid? Did they get paid more or less?
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.
I'm sorry, what's this about proving innocence in court? Does reasonable doubt not exist from "Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"? (I also can't find anything about who the defense was here. I don't think Trump was personally in a Colorado court. Was it ruled by the partisan Jan 6th committee issuing an opinion? You don't get the same legal rights in a congressional hearing as a courtroom, FYI.)
Trump didn't bother showing up. His lawyers provided no evidence and a lot of nothing for defense. The Colorado court videos are on c-span, the first is
here, and you can find all of them by copying into a google search bar the following line, with different day or part numbers as needed (6 days worth!):
site:c-span.org "Former President Trump 14th Amendment Hearing in Colorado, Day 1, Part 1"
Put your "proving innocence" and " reasonable doubt" aside and watch enough of the court proceedings to form an opinion based on what you see and not what the "news" repeats. I'll debate you about the videos, not about what the "news" said... I didn't see the defense bring up anything worthy to defend Trump and I didn't see partisan behavior by the court. Besides my uneducated opinion, plenty of esteemed conservative lawyers agreed with the court findings. See for yourself what happened...
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.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Trump hasn't been charged with 18 USC 2383: Rebellion or insurrection. Nor did he swear any oath to overthrow the US government (which he was currently a part of and didn't want to leave,) that one could point to. This isn't a (dis)qualification you can find on a birth certificate, so it needs to be very carefully applied for risk of misuse. Generally that means a trial by jury with all legal protections since you're taking away a right. (Also, POTUS involves a national election, just to point out that difference.)
Yep, 14A section 3 says that... but because the federal offices failed to exercise that power to vote yeah or nay on it, Colorado has the right to vote yeah or nay on it. This is why Congress and the other federal offices did not shut down that Colorado case, they didn't have the right because they did not rule on the question of 14A s3. Had they ruled yeah on 14A s3, they could have charged him with 18 USC 2383 and had they ruled nay on 14A s3, they would have given Trump's lawyer the immediate right to shut down Colorado's case. See how that works? Now Colorado is forcing them to do what they should have done already, rule on 14A s3.
No oath to overthrow the government. Really? Wanted to stay in it. Really? Not like a birth certificate. Really? Must be carefully applied and possible misuse. Really? Watch the Colorado state hearings and you'll see the prosecution and the judge weigh in on those when the defense brings them up.
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.
Hardly matters when you're stretching legal terms and engaging in judicial activism, does it? States will determine what their due process is.
"States will determine what their due process is." Yes they will, and the steps for due process are written in law, so that due process will receive intense scrutiny in a high profile case. So when someone tries to get Biden off the ballot in a "red" state, everyone will be watching; and then it goes up to the federal level because it would effect all states, where they will say yeah or nay.
Please be specific about which legal terms I am stretching.
I came to my conclusions, and I do have a particularly strong distaste for the act of creating slates of fake electors and of negotiating with election officials with a bag of money in one hand and a weapon in the other. Perhaps that makes me a judicial activist, or maybe I'm just someone who took a loyalty pledge to a constitution rather than an individual. Did you notice how many conservatives agree with the Colorado ruling?
Remember the 62 election fraud cases which had no evidence and were lost?
Since you brought it up:
Judges tossed out nearly all of the roughly 60 suits filed by the Trump campaign and its backers for a variety of reasons and, in many instances, individual cases were dismissed on many different grounds. Some judges said the Trump campaign lacked legal standing to challenge voting procedures. Others said Trump electors or individual voters lacked standing.
Many cases were thrown out for laches — a legal principle barring untimely suits. Others were declared to be moot or precluded by ongoing litigation at the state level. At least two suits were deemed to violate the Eleventh Amendment — the constitutional provision limiting federal-court litigation against states and state officials.
[...]
Some judges also used another basis to throw out the Trump lawsuits — finding that the claims were too speculative to proceed. Those kinds of dismissals trouble many left-leaning lawyers because they deny court-ordered discovery like subpoenas and depositions in cases where litigants lack details about how they were defrauded or injured.
I didn't spend time looking at the 62 cases, and I don't trust any one "news" article on them. People who deal with the law and the elections would have reviewed the actual filings for the 62 cases, specifically to find what
evidence the prosecution was offering. If evidence was there, as the GOP people publicly and repeatedly said they had, it would have come out into the open. What "we the people" have instead, is GOP text messages ordering people to say the elections were rigged: before the elections started, while the counting was being done, and after the counting was done. That, plus the words of a crowd of bi-partisan and esteemed lawyers who said "no evidence there..."
And lack of standing is exactly what a citizen with no evidence has when making a challenge. Try it sometime... get evidence of a town official doing dirty deeds and file the court accusation, and you will have standing. Do the same without evidence, and you will not.