14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[NewMexGirl]

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

Stern, you likely will not remember me; I was one of the Bundy-obsessed crowd. It is lovely to see you on the Fogbow again!

[sterngard friegen]

Orlylicious is right. Taitz should run to Colorado (is she a Colorado Elector? If not she can buy a house there and register). After she goes to Colorado, she can file an action to force the Secretary of State to find Barack Obama ineligible. Because now he is ineligible.

As for what's next, SCOTUS will take up the case and reverse the Colorado Supreme Court, saying state courts can't find a Presidential candidate ineligible. On what basis? I don't know, but the 5 right wing nuts and the dithering Chief Justice can just make up new law, applicable only in this case, as is their wont.

One of my children is clerking with a federal appellate court on the right coast and it is my hope his or her judge gets one of the intermediate Trump appeals. It would bring things full circle for the Friegen family.

[Estiveo]

Stern!

[bob]

[SuzieC]

Don't throw things at me but.....can this backfire? Doesn't it give the perfect excuse for a future R majority house to disqualify the electors from blue states like Colorado? Personally, I would prefer to see Trump run in Colorado and be defeated by 10, 15, or 20 points.

[bob]

Don't throw things at me but.....can this backfire? Doesn't it give the perfect excuse for a future R majority house to disqualify the electors from blue states like Colorado?

Sure it can backfire.

The most likely response will be lawsuits in red states that contend Biden engaged in an insurrection when he ... well, you know.

As for the Electoral College, objections would have to be sustained in both chambers. But, yes, in theory, a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate could (as early as January 2025!) seek to punish Colorado by sustaining objections to its electors.

[northland10]

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?

Well, Stern cheated by having real clients who wanted to be represented in court by somebody who was competent and also knew the birther antics. He didn't have "clients" who were just a name on a piece of paper and could not show up to court because they were stuck on the shitter.

The court was biased for reality, albeit a very slow reality.

Stern egregiously defrauded the court, and, egregiously defamed Orly, because he used truthiness, which was egregiously, , fraudulent.

I agree with Stern (and not just because he tends to be right in these matters). I don't see this surviving SCOTUS. I would not hazard a guess as to why, but I expect they will reverse.

[Dave from down under]

Thomas is accepting gifts…

Who gives most gets his vote

[June bug]

Stern!

Sadly, I agree about SCOTUS.

[MN-Skeptic]

Stern!

Sadly, I agree about SCOTUS.

Yeah. Both of those.

[Rolodex]

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.*




* 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!

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

[Reddog]

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.*




* 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.

[Reddog]

Link is in the board Index for Formerly Fogbow

https://formerly.thefogbow.com/forum/

[MN-Skeptic]

Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy

I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.

[raison de arizona]

bootlicker

[bob]

I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary ballot until Trump is also allowed to be on the ballot, and I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately - or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver which will have disastrous consequences for our country.

SCoCO's ruling makes it clear that, if SCOTUS review is sought, then SCoCO's ruling won't go into effect. Meaning: If there's a cert. petition (hint: there will be), the Republican primary will continue as normal.

[Mr brolin]

Now...... in no way, means or form am I a constitutional or any other flavour of lawyer.

But, and very happy to be corrected...

This is NOT an eligibility to be President case, which would be federal and therefore under the potential aegis of the USSC

It is a case around the CO state constitution requirements and penalties to be (or not to be) a participant in a party primary, not the Nuremberg rally acclaimation of the God Emperor.

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

As such, using the merest smatter of my knowledge, is this not therefore "unripe" for any challenge to SCOTUS?

i mean, simply because the CO Republican party would be barred from having Trump on the list (of probably 1) candidates, it does not preclude him from the other states primaries..? He would still be able to be be passed by acclaimation from the other 49 states primaries?

[Ben-Prime]

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.

Shhhh. Don't tell them.

[Ben-Prime]

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 )

Dangit, Ninja'ed again.

[keith]

i mean, simply because the CO Republican party would be barred from having Trump on the list (of probably 1) candidates, it does not preclude him from the other states primaries..? He would still be able to be be passed by acclaimation from the other 49 states primaries?

Not only but also, there could be a 'stalking horse' candidate on the ballot, who, when he/she/it/they get to the Convention merely withdraws and arranges for their delegates to vote for Trump and get him nominated.

[Kendra]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but Lisa Rubin was on Morning Joe a bit ago and she summed up one point that even registered with my brain. She says tfg and lawyers chose not to try to remove the Georgia case to federal court like Meadows did, because he would have had to argue that he was a Federal Officer, which would have likely to come back and bite him in the CO case and other state cases when they try to fight them claiming he was NOT a Federal Officer.

[realist]

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!!!!!

[bill_g]

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but Lisa Rubin was on Morning Joe a bit ago and she summed up one point that even registered with my brain. She says tfg and lawyers chose not to try to remove the Georgia case to federal court like Meadows did, because he would have had to argue that he was a Federal Officer, which would have likely to come back and bite him in the CO case and other state cases when they try to fight them claiming he was NOT a Federal Officer.

Team Trump is adept at arguing from contrary perspectives.

[sterngard friegen]

I've been trying to figure out how the 6 conservative justices will reverse or vacate the Colorado judgment, and order that case dismissed.

I think it will either be on standing grounds ("mere voters" don't have that standing) or on the ground that 14/3 requires enabling Federal legislation (for consistency of decision). In either case (and maybe a combination), this case will be ended as will future challenges unless and until there is enabling legislation. (Translation: never.)

The standing issue is a potent one. It was how we prevailed in most of the 2012 election cycle cases to President Obama's eligibility. But it is also ironic. In the last two years this Court has weakened or even ignored classic standing requirements when it wanted to deal with an issue, such as the student loan forgiveness cases. But requiring Federal standing (uniquely affected plaintiffs whose damages differ from the damages of the population at large) makes a lot of sense when dealing with Federal issues. And it doesn't require much intellectual work to apply Federal standing requirements to state court challenges of uniquely Federal issues.

As for enabling legislation, other provisions of the 13th and 14th amendments (and much of the Bill of Rights) haven't required enabling legislation, although in many cases Congress has clarified the best ways to vindicate the guaranteed rights. But here there is a strong argument that it isn't a "right" we're guaranteeing but a disqualification. And since we have 51 different systems of election laws, there should be consistency in the one election all of these 51 systems participate in. Thus, 14/3 presents a unique situation and requires enabling legislation to prevent the chaos that would occur if a presidential candidate was disqualified in some states but not others. (Enabling legislation would address the quantum of evidence, venue, timing of a disqualification challenge and the path of any appeal.)

I anticipate a decision which will have 6 justices on the side that reverses or vacates the Colorado judgment and orders the case dismissed, with the Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson voting to affirm.

As for the authors of the opinions, CJ Roberts will assign the majority decision for himself, but other justices won't be able to help themselves, and Alito and Thomas will write excoriating concurrences. On the losing side, Jackson will write the opinion as she is becoming the bedrock liberal of the minority, and its best writer and judicial mind.

I also think that while SCOTUS will -- because it has to -- take this case on an expedited basis, it won't take up the criminal prosecution cert. petition but leave that case for the D.C. Circuit. There is only so much SCOTUS can handle at any one time. What that means is that the Colorado case becomes a distraction and the case that could actually kick Trump to the kerb doesn't get to trial in March.

I wish it was otherwise.

(bob - show me where I have gone wrong.)