14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[bob]

Simply because one of the states, many and various, has barred Cheeto the Cheat from a state level party primary, this therefore remain a singular state (and states rights) issue

SCoCO excluded the former president from the ballot based on the U.S. Constitution. It is entirely within SCOTUS' purview to say SCoCO interpreted the U.S. Constitution incorrectly.

If SCOTUS takes up this case, its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would be binding on all of the states.

But if SCOTUS affirms SCoCO's ruling, it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion the former president could or should be excluded from every state's ballots. The SCoCO dissenters contend this challenge was procedurally defective under state law; they shied away from the merits of the ruling about the 14th Amendment.

So a ruling affirming SCoCO likely would lead to a state-by-state battle, focused on each state's ballot-access rules.

[Rolodex]

Taitz and Apuzzo were birther attorneys who repeatedly challenged Obama's eligibility. They were both very bad attorneys, each in their own way. Apuzzo died from COVID during the pandemic. Taitz was really a dentist who somehow got a law degree; once she got tired of losing and losing in court, she went back to dentistry.*




* Yes, I know this summary is excluding so, so much.

t
Thank you so much! I don't remember anything much about this at all, but I didn't pay much attention to politics back in the Obama days. So juicy!

I joined during the bundy/malheur incident after most of the birther stuff (which I believe is the main raison d’être of The Fogbow). So, I understand trying to play ketchup.

I don’t know if this was included in your welcome package but it helped a lot.
viewtopic.php?t=2169&start=25
Main thing about Orly is she is TWLITHOTU.
There is much much more on the Oldbow, perhaps someone could supply a link if you wanted to get some more perspective.

Thank you so much! V helpful for a newbie like me!

I got all invested in the poots during the Malheur standoff. I was part of a fb group called Y'all Queda (and other names as well) which was a lot of fun. There were some pro-level trolls in there who interacted with those nuts. I think that's the group that sent the barrel of lube and a bunch of dildos to them. Ah, memories!

[Luke]

As always, Stern, your post was a pleasure to read. We all learn so much from you. Thank you.

I’m aware that the odds are against me, but just for the sake of amusement, I’ll take the other side of the bet – that the Supreme Court will decline to grant a writ of certiorari, similar to TX v PA and other 2020 election cases. Those TX v PA days were harrowing, MAGAs were absolutely certain they'd take the case. John Eastman bet his law license on it. I expect we'll be hearing the same thing about this.

Or in the words of “Joseph DeMaio” from the Post & Email, they will “EVADE THE ISSUE”. Yup, they’re still circulating that old YouTube snippet of Clarence’s jest. “DeMaio” reused it just this past week.https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/12/13 ... se-on-nbc/

Supreme Court Justice Thomas: We're Evading Article II Eligibility Issue - 4/16/10

BirtherReportDotCom 24.3K subscribers
35,015 views May 9, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; We're Evading Article II Eligibility Issue - 4/16/10





Judge J. Michael Luttig discussed this case and possible SCOTUS action in August with Lawrence Tribe, and again in November. I found this interview quite intriguing, he firmly believes SCOTUS will examine the “plain text” of the 14A and concur with Colorado. The MSNBC transcript can be found here: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-ho ... rcna123336 and I posted it on X (below).


As for Taitz – I hope Realist has taken the necessary steps and dialed that EMERGENCY contact number. Yes, she could now fulfill her promise of 30 DAYS with Barack Obama! But this Colorado disqualification action could be Taitz’s final opportunity for GREATNESS. She could be right in the center of the action! And if she plays her cards correctly, she might secure a position as a 47 Deputy AG (though it might be challenging for her and Yosi to complete the SF-86, which must have been a hurdle during the 45 Administration). It’s crucial that she doesn’t wait for an invitation from Trump to get involved… she needs to demonstrate PROACTIVITY and board a plane immediately. Don't let us down (again), Lena!

[bob]

I’m aware that the odds are against me, but just for the sake of amusement, I’ll take the other side of the bet – that the Supreme Court will decline to grant a writ of certiorari, similar to TX v PA and other 2020 election cases.

That's a fair point: If SCOTUS denies cert., then SCoCO's ruling is binding only in Colorado. Other states could come to different conclusions. SCOTUS may wait until there's a full-blown conflict (ob. "of opinions") among the states.

SCoCO's ruling, however, gives some side eye to similar proceedings in Michigan. A conflict among the states may come soon enough.

* * *

I expected some breathless reporting on this from the P&E, but that site has been stale for a few days now.

I suspect the union workers in Rondeau's basement don't know how to operate the emergency generator.

[Res Ipsa]

Other states could come to different conclusions.

But other courts, at least, have. CO got the "dog bites man" attention in the press.

Florida (federal): denied on standing

Michigan (state): Thus far at the state appellate level, denied on ripeness, as wouldn't apply to a primary.

Minnesota (state): The MN Supreme Court ruled it did not apply to the primary.

Pending: Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The Trump Disqualification Tracker is here:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-pr ... on-tracker

Screenshot 2023-12-20 at 3.36.40 PM.png (136.93 KiB) Viewed 8344 times

Waiting until there is a direct conflict may not be the best approach, as there is a high likelihood of one and arguably an existing one as to whether it applies to primary elections.

[Estiveo]

Holy moly, Res Ipsa and Stern! It's old home week at the 'bow!

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

I don’t see the logic here. I also don’t see what’s wrong with keeping someone who has no business being president and demonstrated that Durkin’s first term from being president again by any means necessary.

[bob]

Waiting until there is a direct conflict may not be the best approach, as there is a high likelihood of one and arguably an existing one as to whether it applies to primary elections.

I agree it may not be the best approach, but that's often how the sausage gets made.

To deny cert., six justices must vote to deny. But those six don't have to agree on why they are denying, or even explain (publicly, at least) why they voted to deny.

* * *

I don’t see the logic here.

Adams is hiding behind lazy wording, but saying SCoCO misread the 14th Amendment is a form of "overreach." It is a reasonable opinion to say SCoCO got it wrong (or, more cynically, to say SCOTUS will hand-wave a ruling that "explains" how SCoCO got it wrong).

[RVInit]

Holy moly, Res Ipsa and Stern! It's old home week at the 'bow!

From what I understand in one case at least...real, real, real old.

[Suranis]

I don’t see the logic here.

There isn't any logic. No matter what happens, it will be said to cause Trump's poll numbers to rise and prove 2020 was rigged. This has been the pattern for 3 years now. Theres no point in trying to figure that out, because the person starts with the conclusion and then works back to the event. In this case, Adams gives no reason at all because he cant make CO blocking trump do all that, so he just presents it as a fait accomplis and relies on the reader to make up their own reasons why it will happen.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Stern and Res Ipsa are BACK!!!!!!!

[Greatgrey]

[RTH10260]

[RTH10260]

banana republic etc ...

Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after disqualifying Trump from the ballot
The latest round of threats fits a familiar pattern: Trump faces a legal setback, and officials face threats.

Dec. 21, 2023, 3:02 AM CET
By Ryan J. Reilly

In the 24 hours since the Colorado Supreme Court kicked former President Donald Trump off the state's Republican primary ballot, social media outlets have been flooded with threats against the justices who ruled in the case, according to a report obtained by NBC News.

Advance Democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that conducts public interest research, identified "significant violent rhetoric" against the justices and Democrats, often in direct response to Trump's posts about the ruling on his platform Truth Social. They found that some social media users posted justices' email addresses, phone numbers and office building addresses.

"This ends when we kill these f--kers," a user wrote on a pro-Trump forum that was used by several Jan. 6 rioters.

"Kill judges. Behead judges. Roundhouse kick a judge into the concrete," read a post on a fringe website. "Slam dunk a judge's baby into the trashcan."

The threats fit into a predictable and familiar pattern, seen time and time again after legal developments against Trump. After the FBI searched Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, a man who had been at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, attacked the FBI field office in Cincinnati with a nail gun while holding an AR-15-style rifle. When a grand jury in Georgia indicted Trump, some of his supporters posted the grand jurors' addresses online. When U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was assigned to special counsel Jack Smith's federal election interference case against Trump, she faced threats from Trump supporters. A federal appeals court pointed out the pattern when it upheld a narrowed gag order against Trump in his election interference case this month, noting that those he publicly targets are often threatened and harassed.




https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... rcna130720

[Rolodex]

One of the best articles I've read about SCOTUS taking up this case. The article is a bit lengthy, but very readable.

Now that he has put us all in this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court – and especially the Roberts majority – has a real dilemma on its hands. It has advertised itself as being a textualist and originalist court, in which the words say what they mean and were intended to mean when adopted. And as several Federalist Society aligned law professors have written persuasively, and as Judge J. Michael Luttig, who comes out of the same legal school of thought as the Supreme Court majority, has argued, the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment by its terms and intent was to bar someone who did what Donald Trump did from holding office again.



So if the Court is just applying the law, then a straight read of the law requires them to uphold the Colorado decision.

But of course the Court does not exist in a vacuum. As Jesse Wegman wrote in The New York Times,

“As the justices in Washington weigh these matters, they will no doubt be aware of the political unrest surrounding them. They know that Mr. Trump has built a large political following and is marshaling his followers to turn against the justice system for indicting him, to intimidate law enforcement officials and court personnel and anyone else who gets in his way. They are aware that he will whip his die-hard followers into a frenzy against the Supreme Court itself, just as he unleashed his followers to try to bend Congress to his will on Jan. 6.”

So the question for the Supreme Court is as much about the Fourteenth Amendment as it is about whether the rule of law or the rule of the mob is the governing order of our land.

Faced with that question, there can only be one answer: the Court must apply the law without fear or favor.

He takes up 6 objections to the CO Supreme Court's decision, and argues why they don't stand up. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/trump ... eme-court/

[raison de arizona]

IMG_6728.png (455.56 KiB) Viewed 7962 times

[RTH10260]

Trump lawyer threatens Colorado top court and 'other judges' with future prosecutions

David Edwards
December 20, 2023 5:31PM ET

Jesse Binnall, an appellate attorney for Donald Trump, warned that a "real" Department of Justice would federally prosecute Colorado State Supreme Court justices who voted to remove the former president from the state's primary ballot.

During an appearance on Real America's Voice on Wednesday, Binnall slammed the court's decision to disqualify Trump based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents anyone who participated in an insurrection from holding office.

Binnall told the conservative network that there was a way a future Department of Justice could punish the Colorado justices with federal prosecution and civil rights laws. He suggested a "real" DOJ would take action against the Colorado justices and "other judges" if Trump won the 2024 election.

"And what needs to happen is there are already federal statutes on the books about violation of civil rights and the color of law," he explained. "Every single one of these people, and [when] we actually have a real Department of Justice, should be held to account for their decision to throw our justice system into the fire, effectively, and leave the rule of law that has made our country so special over the years, and instead decide to make decisions based on politics and not the law."



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prosecut ... do-judges/

"There needs to be accountability," Binnall added.

[sterngard friegen]

My first prediction, above, was correct. Expedited treatment of the cert. petition of Jack Smith denied.

The other half of my prediction is that this court will reverse the Colorado Supreme Court on either "Federal standing" grounds, or on the ground that 14/3 requires an enabling statute, at least when it comes to POTUS, since there are 51 simultaneous elections and there should only be one court to make the disqualification decision (probably the D.C. District Court or a panel of three judges in D.C.). Or on both grounds.

We can thank the cowardly and dithering AG Merrick Garland, who sat on his ass for two years, didn't bother to even investigate Trump and then turned the job over to somebody else. The belated indictment is just too late. Pathetic.

[bob]

Jesse Binnall, an appellate attorney for Donald Trump, warned that a "real" Department of Justice would federally prosecute Colorado State Supreme Court justices who voted to remove the former president from the state's primary ballot.

* *

"And what needs to happen is there are already federal statutes on the books about violation of civil rights and the color of law," he explained.

Binnall regularly says dumb things, but this is especially dumb.

If every losing litigant who was later vindicated on appeal could sue the judges who made the original (now erroneous) ruling, there would be no judges. Similarly, if the state could prosecute a judge for making an erroneous but earnest ruling, there again would be no judges.

And if Binnall is suggesting SCoCO corruptly came to its conclusion (notwithstanding his exhaustive discussion of the issues), then he's dumb and a liar.

[bob]

The other half of my prediction is that this court will reverse the Colorado Supreme Court on either "Federal standing" grounds, or on the ground that 14/3 requires an enabling statute, at least when it comes to POTUS, since there are 51 simultaneous elections and there should only be one court to make the disqualification decision (probably the D.C. District Court or a panel of three judges in D.C.). Or on both grounds.

The (inevitable) SCOTUS appeal will focus on federal constitutional grounds. The petitioner may wish to contest the factual findings, but SCOTUS will be more interested in the constitutional law.

These grounds could be, for example: What is the meaning of "insurrection" ("as the term is used by the Fourteenth Amendment")?; Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a conviction? Were his words protected First Amendment activity (and thus cannot be part of an insurrection)?; Is the president an officer of the United States* ("as the term is used by the Fourteenth Amendment"); Whether Congress is required to first enact enabling legislation?; and Did he receive the process that was due?

I think the easiest way for SCOTUS to reverse is to rule that Congress must first pass enabling legislation, with a kiss-of-death like, "We presently take no position on whether Congress may enable states to determine whether a candidate engaged in a disqualifying insurrection."

Because everyone knows Congress will never get around to enabling such legislation, which will render Section Three toothless. (Toothless provisions are something textualists are supposed to abhor, yet here we are.)


* Some SCOTUS dicta essentially says "an officer is someone who is appointed by someone else." Because no one appointed the president (the president, in fact, appoints others), the argument goes, the president ipso facto isn't an officer. But those SCOTUS cases all discuss positions inferior to the president; none of those cases discuss whether the president (actual) is an officer.

[sterngard friegen]

Not so fast, bob. Leslie Lynch King, Jr. was appointed VP and became President.

I think the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the "officer" point is correct.

[bob]

Not so fast, bob. Leslie Lynch King, Jr. was appointed VP and became President.

I think the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the "officer" point is correct.

Yeah yeah yeah: And nobody, for example, elected birthers' second favorite president, Arthur, to the presidency. (Ditto for every other president who assumed office due to their predecessor's death.)

Me too also about the "officer" issue; I'm just acknowledging that amici (and others) have cited some SCOTUS dicta that's supportive. But they overplay by not acknowledging it is dicta.

And I think (this) SCOTUS will duck the "officer" question by relying on Section Five's enabling grounds to vacate SCoCO's ruling.

[Greatgrey]

So Clay Higgins has a response
Do ya think it would survive a veto?

[Ben-Prime]

So Clay Higgins has a response
Do ya think it would survive a veto?

I mean, of course, Colorado is right now only banning TFG from the PRIMARY ballot. Which means, by definition, he ain't yet the official nominee. Cart, horse, etc.

[bob]

I mean, of course, Colorado is right now only banning TFG from the PRIMARY ballot. Which means, by definition, he ain't yet the official nominee. Cart, horse, etc.

Good point. A few courts have dodged the disqualification issue for now by noting the winner of a primary election is only a nominee (and not an officeholder-elect). (In lawtalk, "the court presently lacks jurisdiction because the issue is not yet ripe.")