14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[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.

My prediction of SCOTUS' decision on 14/3 has been vindicated.

[raison de arizona]

Why come the 14th Amendment isn't but the 2nd Amendment is?

[noblepa]

Why do I have the feeling that, had the case been an effort to remove Biden from the ballot, the result would have been different?

[New Turtle]

Why do I have the feeling that, had the case been an effort to remove Biden from the ballot, the result would have been different?

Probably same result, but slightly closer vote count.

[DrConspiracy]

Back in 2008, a naturalized US citizen named Abdul Karim Hassan ran for president. One of the states where he tried to get on the ballot was Colorado. He was refused because, they said, he was not eligible to serve as president under the Constitution. Hassan appealed the decision, eventually reaching the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that, in an opinion written by then circuit judge Neil Gorsuch, affirmed Colorado's decision.

Now Donald Trump has been excluded by Colorado for the same reason, that he is ineligible to serve under the Constitution, and once again that decision is appealed and will come before Gorsuch who now sits on the U. S. Supreme Court.

[raison de arizona]

Huh. Guess he felt differently this time.

[raison de arizona]

I like how when it comes to something that helps tfg, SCOTUS can move quickly, but when delays could help him (i.e. immunity) they drag their collective feet.

Odd that.

[bob]

I should add, Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor concurred in the judgment- they agreed that a State cannot remove a candidate for national office from the ballot. But they thought the majority went too far by addressing things beyond that yes-or-no question.

Barrett also concurred in judgment (and much of the majority opinion), saying much of what those three said.

* * *

The ruling does leave the whole birther question unanswered/muddled. Birthers had believed that state government officials could remove an ineligible presidential candidate. Indeed, that has happened for over 50 years.

To harmonize these rulings, the implicit rule seems to be states may continue to exclude ineligible federal candidates, but not disqualify federal candidates. But I also wouldn't be surprised if a future court read today's ruling and concluded states lack the authority to police their own ballots with respect to federal candidates.

"Funny" how these federalist judges sometimes don't mind taking away power from the states.

[John Thomas8]

It's time to leave, we've stopped governing properly.

Sigh.

[Sam the Centipede]

"Funny" how these federalist judges sometimes don't mind taking away power from the states.

In my years as a legal ignoramus here I feel I have seen a shift in attitudes among our leagles from a benevolent "trust the system, trust the judges" motif towards a more cynical "they're serving their own agenda and their own masters" view.

Only my impression. But cynicism is usually merited these days.

[p0rtia]

Sadly, I don't think it's cynicism anymore. It's just facts.

Sadly.

[John Thomas8]

Sadly, I don't think it's cynicism anymore. It's just facts.

Sadly.

We've all watched what mutts were given federal judgeships. It's been obscene to watch.

[p0rtia]

[RTH10260]

crosspost

Supreme Court rejects Colorado ruling, keeps Trump on ballot nationwide
While the decision was unanimous, the liberal justices wrote a sharp concurrence that accused the conservative majority of going further than needed

By Ann E. Marimow
Updated March 4, 2024 at 5:49 p.m. EST|Published March 4, 2024 at 10:01 a.m. EST

The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with former president Donald Trump, allowing the 2024 Republican presidential front-runner to remain on the election ballot and reversing a Colorado ruling that disqualified him from returning to office because of his conduct around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The justices said the Constitution does not permit a single state to disqualify a presidential candidate from national office. The court warned of disruption and a chaotic state-by-state patchwork if a candidate for nationwide office could be declared ineligible in some states, but not others, based on the same conduct.

“Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos — arriving at any time or different times, up to and perhaps beyond the inauguration,” the court said in an unsigned, 13-page opinion.

The court’s decision to keep Trump on the ballot applies to other states with similar challenges to his candidacy and, for now, removes the Supreme Court from directly determining the path of the 2024 presidential election.

While the decision was unanimous, the court’s three liberal justices also wrote separately, saying the conservative majority went too far and decided an issue that was not before the court in an attempt to “insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding office.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... -decision/
share link https://wapo.st/49WwC55

[bob]

I like how when it comes to something that helps tfg, SCOTUS can move quickly, but when delays could help him (i.e. immunity) they drag their collective feet.

To be fair, today is the Colorado presidential primary. If SCOTUS had dropped its ruling today, it would have been pointless. If it dropped it tomorrow, the issue would have been mooted.

[RTH10260]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

[realist]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Yes. And if he had that sort of delivery during all his videos I could then tolerate listening to him.

[neonzx]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is made up of conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

[realist]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is all conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Ben Meiselas Bio, Age, Wife, Geragos, salary And Net Worth - Fact-Wiki
Ben Meiselas is a civil rights attorney and the co-founder of MeidasTouch, a liberal political action committee. He works as a partner at Geragos & Geragos and heads the firm's transactional and civil practice.

https://fact-wiki.com/ben-meiselas/

[bob]

Slate (Mark Stern): Supreme Court Inadvertently Reveals Confounding Late Change in Trump Ballot Ruling:

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to keep Donald Trump on Colorado’s ballot was styled as a unanimous one without any dissents. But the metadata tells a different story. On the page, a separate opinion by the liberal justices is styled as a concurrence in the judgment, authored jointly by the trio. In the metadata of the link to the opinion posted by the court, however, this opinion is styled as an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, authored not by all three justices but by Sonia Sotomayor alone. Even a techphobic reader can discern this incongruity through careful copying and pasting, piercing the facade of unanimity that the conservative justices sought to present.

What happened? Most obviously, the Supreme Court rushed out this opinion and forgot to check the metadata. The court, after all, scheduled the opinion’s release only one day earlier, on Sunday afternoon, evidently to hand it down before Tuesday’s Colorado primary. Moreover, the justices did not take the bench to announce the opinion, as they usually do—probably because they had not all planned to be in D.C.—further proving that it was a last-minute release. The deeper question remains, of course: Why was an opinion originally authored by a lone justice as a partial dissent transformed into a concurrence authored by all three liberals together?

Stern speculates there was the trading of horses, but there's no firm evidence as to what was gained or given away.

[Resume18]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is made up of conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

I think that's the Lincoln Project.

[raison de arizona]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is made up of conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

I think that's the Lincoln Project.

[RTH10260]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is made up of conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

By "tolerable" I was refering to his presentation style, here I suggest humans can take a chance of listening in without whining about hours of life lost ...

[p0rtia]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is made up of conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

[neonzx]

MTN Ben Meiselas presents the former guy's press statement after the ruling

Ben is tolerable during the first minutes

Sorta I guess. RTH, you do understand that MTN is made up of conservatives who vote Republican? They are just anti Trump.

I did indeed confuse MTN with The Lincoln Project.

Still the commentators too much. No, I don't have that many wake hours in my day.