14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[Volkonski]

Didn't expect that!

[Foggy]

[Greatgrey]

CO Supreme Court finds that Trump didn't "merely incite" the insurrection, he also "continued to support it" while it was underway

[bob]

It is a 4-3 decision; all seven justices were appointed by a Democratic governor.

Looks like his legal team will be working on Christmas after all.

SCOCO:

Section Three encompasses the office of the Presidency and someone who has taken an oath as President. On this point, the district court
committed reversible error.

The dissents, interestingly, don't disagree with majority on this point. They, each in their own way, disagree that the courts have the ability to resolve the president's qualifications.

[Foggy]

This may be blossoming into a snowball.

(Narrator: That's from something a birther said once. Things that blossom do not thereby become snowballs, in this writer's experience.)

[bob]

This may be blossoming into a snowball.

(Narrator: That's from something a birther said once. Things that blossom do not thereby become snowballs, in this writer's experience.)

Speaking of birthers, SCOCO cites the 2016 Pennslyvania eligibility challenge against Cruz. As well Hassan's efforts to get onto the 2012 ballot.

And this honker (when rejecting the argument only Congress can determine a president's qualifications)!:

[W]e are unpersuaded by the cases on which President Trump and his amici rely, which are predicated on inferences they assert can be drawn from one or more of the foregoing constitutional provisions or on the fact that the cases had political implications. See, e.g., Taitz v. Democrat Party of Miss., No. 3:12-CV-280-HTW-LRA, 2015 WL 11017373, at *12–16 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015); Grinols v. Electoral Coll., No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *5–7 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2015); Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146–47 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Keyes v. Bowen, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); Strunk v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 6500/11, 2012 WL 1205117, at *11–12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012), aff’d in part, dismissed in part, 5 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).

THANK YOU ORLY TAITZ AND MARIO APUZZO!

[Kendra]

Any bets the ketchup bottles are flying tonight?

[p0rtia]

Discussion of "officer" and "under" the United States, starting on page 70, is fascinating.

This ruling may lack the flair of some, but man is it clear and precisely written. Not littered (sorry) with citations. IANAL and the fact that I can follow it is wonderful.

[p0rtia]

This may be blossoming into a snowball.

(Narrator: That's from something a birther said once. Things that blossom do not thereby become snowballs, in this writer's experience.)

Speaking of birthers, SCOCO cites the 2016 Pennslyvania eligibility challenge against Cruz. As well Hassan's efforts to get onto the 2012 ballot.

And this honker (when rejecting the argument only Congress can determine a president's qualifications)!:

[W]e are unpersuaded by the cases on which President Trump and his amici rely, which are predicated on inferences they assert can be drawn from one or more of the foregoing constitutional provisions or on the fact that the cases had political implications. See, e.g., Taitz v. Democrat Party of Miss., No. 3:12-CV-280-HTW-LRA, 2015 WL 11017373, at *12–16 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015); Grinols v. Electoral Coll., No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *5–7 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2015); Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146–47 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Keyes v. Bowen, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); Strunk v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 6500/11, 2012 WL 1205117, at *11–12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012), aff’d in part, dismissed in part, 5 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).

THANK YOU ORLY TAITZ AND MARIO APUZZO!

Wow! Thanks for pulling that out, Bob!

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

An early Kitzmas* present!

*Kitzmiller v. Dover was decided on December 20th, 2005, ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the 1st Amendment because it was religious, not scientific

[much ado]

Can this ruling be appealed to the Supreme Court?

If it can be, it will be.

[bob]

Can this ruling be appealed to the Supreme Court?

If it can be, it will be.

Yes; SCOCO anticipates an appeal: it stayed its ruling until January 4 (the deadline for SoSoCO to certify the candidates).

[Suranis]

For masochism addicts...

[much ado]

NYT live report gift link: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Mr. Trump’s campaign said immediately that it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, a likelihood that the Colorado justices anticipated by putting their ruling on hold until January. And while Tuesday’s ruling applies only to one state, it could all but force the nation’s highest court to decide the question for all 50.

[Resume18]

NYT live report gift link: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

Mr. Trump’s campaign said immediately that it would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, a likelihood that the Colorado justices anticipated by putting their ruling on hold until January. And while Tuesday’s ruling applies only to one state, it could all but force the nation’s highest court to decide the question for all 50.

Orange man very, very mad.

[sterngard friegen]

This may be blossoming into a snowball.

(Narrator: That's from something a birther said once. Things that blossom do not thereby become snowballs, in this writer's experience.)

Speaking of birthers, SCOCO cites the 2016 Pennslyvania eligibility challenge against Cruz. As well Hassan's efforts to get onto the 2012 ballot.

And this honker (when rejecting the argument only Congress can determine a president's qualifications)!:

[W]e are unpersuaded by the cases on which President Trump and his amici rely, which are predicated on inferences they assert can be drawn from one or more of the foregoing constitutional provisions or on the fact that the cases had political implications. See, e.g., Taitz v. Democrat Party of Miss., No. 3:12-CV-280-HTW-LRA, 2015 WL 11017373, at *12–16 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015); Grinols v. Electoral Coll., No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *5–7 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2015); Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146–47 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Keyes v. Bowen, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); Strunk v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 6500/11, 2012 WL 1205117, at *11–12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012), aff’d in part, dismissed in part, 5 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).

THANK YOU ORLY TAITZ AND MARIO APUZZO!

Hey, bob, isn't there someone you are forgetting to thank?

[bob]

NYT live report gift link: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

NYT:

At a Trump rally in Waterloo, Iowa, many supporters, reading the news on their phones as they waited for Trump to speak, were angry at the ruling, but also sanguine that Trump could not be stopped. “He’ll win anyway,” said Mike Kriener, a Trump supporter from Citrus County, Fla., who sells merchandise at Trump rallies. “He’ll be a write-in candidate. He’ll be wrote in.”

No, he won't.

In many states, write-in candidates first must be certified by election officials. Writing in a non-certified name is just like not voting.

[Rolodex]

This may be blossoming into a snowball.

(Narrator: That's from something a birther said once. Things that blossom do not thereby become snowballs, in this writer's experience.)

Speaking of birthers, SCOCO cites the 2016 Pennslyvania eligibility challenge against Cruz. As well Hassan's efforts to get onto the 2012 ballot.

And this honker (when rejecting the argument only Congress can determine a president's qualifications)!:

[W]e are unpersuaded by the cases on which President Trump and his amici rely, which are predicated on inferences they assert can be drawn from one or more of the foregoing constitutional provisions or on the fact that the cases had political implications. See, e.g., Taitz v. Democrat Party of Miss., No. 3:12-CV-280-HTW-LRA, 2015 WL 11017373, at *12–16 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015); Grinols v. Electoral Coll., No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *5–7 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2015); Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146–47 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Keyes v. Bowen, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); Strunk v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 6500/11, 2012 WL 1205117, at *11–12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012), aff’d in part, dismissed in part, 5 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).

THANK YOU ORLY TAITZ AND MARIO APUZZO!

Can I get a brief rundown of Taitz and Apuzzo? I'm not familiar with those cases. TIA!

[bob]

Can I get a brief rundown of Taitz and Apuzzo? I'm not familiar with those cases. TIA!

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.*

Birthers kept looking to the courts to save them, but ironically only created law that hurt their beliefs and positions. Here's a summary of the birther cases, including those appearing in today's ruling.

A big issue in those birther cases was standing, i.e., could these randos force a presidential candidate off the ballot. And the federal courts generally took the position of: No, because Congress and not the courts is where a president's eligibility should be determined; in other words, the courts lack jurisdiction to make those kind of decisions because the Framers wanted Congress to make those kinds of decisions.

SCoCO today rejected this argument because, unlike with birthers, it didn't agree that 14th Amendment disqualification was just Congress' domain. SCoCO also isn't a federal court; state courts in many instances have more jurisdiction than federal courts.


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

[Luke]

And a big thanks to Stern for those cases! #FriegenFanClub

MAGAs are deliriously angry, the BORDER! HUNTER! Now this! They don't seem to care that the MAGA House only passed 22 bills this year, less than the "Do Nothing" Congress in the 40s. Instead of helping Americans, the GOP House screwed around all year. Radio silence from MAGA & the disgraced, now off-the-ballot loser about that. Ridiculous distractions. A particularly nasty and uninformed MAGA called Joey Mannarino @JoeyMannarino has been whining, coping and seething all day. Colorado is pushing them over the edge. Happy holidays, MAGA! We'll be by the fireplace listening to music and drinking eggnog while you ineffectively tweet your little brains out.

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious
Your anger is misdirected. The GOP House is a disaster. Instead of aiding Americans, only 22 bills passed this session. One was a coin, two renamed facilities. Remember Chip Roy’s question about GOP House’s ONE achievement? That’s where your blame and anger belong.






MOST IMPORTANTLY: Is Orly Taitz in Colorado yet?

This is a huge opportunity for her. Publicity! Class Actions! Quo Warranto! All her legal experience has led her to this point. She should be calling Merde-A-Lago non stop jumping to get on the case. What's Alina Habba have that Orly doesn't? It's insulting. Orly should go kick Alina's ass.

I've decided this is her last chance. If she doesn't hop on a plane and run through the Colorado capital, even if she has to be barefoot, that's it. I'm changing my username for the new year. I keep trying to cut her some slack but with no Tatiz Reports, hardly even a mention of Harrison J. Bournel. Orly is 63 now, it's been 15 years since she became America's Sweetheart. But she's been pathetic about using all that goodwill.

Realist and Foggy, it's time, this is definitely an EMERGENCY. Tell her my username is at stake and she can't afford to lose her biggest fans at Fogbow! It's still on top of her webstye:


In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

[jemcanada2]

This may be blossoming into a snowball.

(Narrator: That's from something a birther said once. Things that blossom do not thereby become snowballs, in this writer's experience.)

Speaking of birthers, SCOCO cites the 2016 Pennslyvania eligibility challenge against Cruz. As well Hassan's efforts to get onto the 2012 ballot.

And this honker (when rejecting the argument only Congress can determine a president's qualifications)!:

[W]e are unpersuaded by the cases on which President Trump and his amici rely, which are predicated on inferences they assert can be drawn from one or more of the foregoing constitutional provisions or on the fact that the cases had political implications. See, e.g., Taitz v. Democrat Party of Miss., No. 3:12-CV-280-HTW-LRA, 2015 WL 11017373, at *12–16 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2015); Grinols v. Electoral Coll., No. 2:12-cv-02997-MCE-DAD, 2013 WL 2294885, at *5–7 (E.D. Cal. May 23, 2013), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 624 (9th Cir. 2015); Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 n.5 (D.N.J. 2009), aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1146–47 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Keyes v. Bowen, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 207, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010); Strunk v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections, No. 6500/11, 2012 WL 1205117, at *11–12 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 11, 2012), aff’d in part, dismissed in part, 5 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015).

THANK YOU ORLY TAITZ AND MARIO APUZZO!

Hey, bob, isn't there someone you are forgetting to thank?

Stern!!!

Welcome back! Please stay to share your thoughts on these cases.

[Dave from down under]

NYT live report gift link: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

NYT:

At a Trump rally in Waterloo, Iowa, many supporters, reading the news on their phones as they waited for Trump to speak, were angry at the ruling, but also sanguine that Trump could not be stopped. “He’ll win anyway,” said Mike Kriener, a Trump supporter from Citrus County, Fla., who sells merchandise at Trump rallies. “He’ll be a write-in candidate. He’ll be wrote in.”

No, he won't.

In many states, write-in candidates first must be certified by election officials. Writing in a non-certified name is just like not voting.

Please
Nobody tell the MAGAts that they cannot write him in
(When he won’t be counted )

[bob]

Hey, bob, isn't there someone you are forgetting to thank?

Repeatedly running to the courts to obtain numerous rulings adverse to your position takes REAL GENIUS.

Being a professional who dutifully represented their clients from nutters while clearly stating what the law actually is?


Rolodex:

► Show Spoiler

In Taitz v. Democratic Pary of Mississippi (cited in today's ruling), Taitz represented herself (and some other birthers); our member Stern represented, well, reality.

Guess who won?

[Suranis]

Repeatedly running to the courts to obtain numerous rulings adverse to your position takes REAL GENIUS.

The birther battle cry in those cases was "we only have to win once." They didn't realize that Precedent made the chance of them winning go down every time they lost.