14th Amendment Trial - Removing Trump from CO Ballot

[Rolodex]

Anyone else keeping an eye on this case? Today was the second day of this trial (hearing?) in which 6 plaintiffs have brought forward a case to remove Trump from Colorado's ballot, citing his involvement in the insurrection. They are citing the 14th Amendment (which I don't know anything about, personally).

Roger Parloff (@rparloff) is live tweeting it. It's also on live video on C-SPAN.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?531511-1/ ... -2-part-1#

Here's a wrap up of Day 1 from CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/30/politics ... index.html

They had an expert on today who has spent years studying extremists. He testified in the Unite the Right trial (Charlottesville, VA). He talked a lot about how these groups (Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, 3%ers etc) have a common way of talking and understanding language; it's a "cultural" thing. He went on to say that Trump understand that language and they know exactly what he means - the "fight" part is literal (esp for these folks already spoiling for violence) and "be peaceful" is something they understand he has to say for "outsiders" but the insiders know he doesn't mean that literally. Pretty chilling.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in this case.

[Foggy]

Anyone else keeping an eye on this case?

I am, and thank you for that report. I doubted this would work, but if I'm wrong and it does work, it's huge.

[Rolodex]

Anyone else keeping an eye on this case?

I am, and thank you for that report. I doubted this would work, but if I'm wrong and it does work, it's huge.

From what I have read, other cases have been filed, but weren't really serious filings. Trump tried to get this one dismissed before it got to this point, but I believe it was a higher court that ruled it could go forward. Crossed fingers! Doubtful Trump would take CO anyway, but it him being off the ballot might suppress R voters and get Boebert dumped.

[bob]

Doubtful Trump would take CO anyway, but it him being off the ballot might suppress R voters and get Boebert dumped.

Regardless of who wins, the loser in SCOCO is going to seek cert. with SCOTUS.

[Maybenaut]

Doubtful Trump would take CO anyway, but it him being off the ballot might suppress R voters and get Boebert dumped.

Regardless of who wins, the loser in SCOCO is going to seek cert. with SCOTUS.

That’s right.

I may be in the minority here, but I think this lawsuit is a mistake, and I wish they hadn’t filed it. What I’m mostly concerned about is the possibility that if it succeeds, individual states will be able to decide for themselves that a particular candidate is constitutionally ineligible because they don’t like his or her politics. Will federal courts tell a state how to define insurrection under the 14th amendment, or will the states get to define that for themselves? This sort of thing makes me nervous.

[bob]

Will federal courts tell a state how to define insurrection under the 14th amendment, or will the states get to define that for themselves? This sort of thing makes me nervous.

Or, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, will define insurrection ("for the purposes of the 14th Amendment") to make it effectively toothless. E.g., "It is disqualifying insurrection only if you wore a grey uniform in the 1860s."

[Maybenaut]

Will federal courts tell a state how to define insurrection under the 14th amendment, or will the states get to define that for themselves? This sort of thing makes me nervous.

Or, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, will define insurrection ("for the purposes of the 14th Amendment") to make it effectively toothless. E.g., "It is disqualifying insurrection only if you wore a grey uniform in the 1860s."

I honestly would rather they do that than permit the states to define it in such a way that it’s easy to keep a national contender off the ballot. That way lies madness.

[Rolodex]

Here's a link to the webex feed.
https://live.coloradojudicial.gov/?stre ... cd656391f9

Also, someone named Ashly Epp was just busted for streaming personally - which is against the CO rules. Idk where she's streaming it but a lawyer said that 8600 people were watching and it was in a place where people could make comments in real time. Sheesh.

Oh lordt the next witness is Katrina Pierson. I wonder if this is the bullet necklace lady.

[Gregg]

Anyone else keeping an eye on this case?

I am, and thank you for that report. I doubted this would work, but if I'm wrong and it does work, it's huge.

If it goes all the way to SCOTUS and does nothing but make Trump waste time, effort, stress and money fighting it, I won't be sad.

He ain't got much time, effort, stress or money to spare right now, he has enough balls he's trying to keep int he air...

[RVInit]

Will federal courts tell a state how to define insurrection under the 14th amendment, or will the states get to define that for themselves? This sort of thing makes me nervous.

Or, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, will define insurrection ("for the purposes of the 14th Amendment") to make it effectively toothless. E.g., "It is disqualifying insurrection only if you wore a grey uniform in the 1860s."

I honestly would rather they do that than permit the states to define it in such a way that it’s easy to keep a national contender off the ballot. That way lies madness.

[realist]

Will federal courts tell a state how to define insurrection under the 14th amendment, or will the states get to define that for themselves? This sort of thing makes me nervous.

Or, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, will define insurrection ("for the purposes of the 14th Amendment") to make it effectively toothless. E.g., "It is disqualifying insurrection only if you wore a grey uniform in the 1860s."

I honestly would rather they do that than permit the states to define it in such a way that it’s easy to keep a national contender off the ballot. That way lies madness.

Concur.

In addition, my IANAL reading of the Section 3 of the 14th is that it is Congress, not the courts, who determines that someone should be disqualified.

And also too, I see nothing in the Section which requires any sort of conviction beforehand, as some have posited.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Section 3 gives Congress the ability to remove the taint on an individual basis. Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment. The question is, has it done so?

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

It seems as though Congress has enacted an enforcing mechanism. The question is, can the states avail themselves of it? Does it require a finding in court under the provisions of the title, despite having a separate clause?

[Gregg]

Or, SCOTUS being SCOTUS, will define insurrection ("for the purposes of the 14th Amendment") to make it effectively toothless. E.g., "It is disqualifying insurrection only if you wore a grey uniform in the 1860s."

I honestly would rather they do that than permit the states to define it in such a way that it’s easy to keep a national contender off the ballot. That way lies madness.

Concur.

In addition, my IANAL reading of the Section 3 of the 14th is that it is Congress, not the courts, who determines that someone should be disqualified.

And also too, I see nothing in the Section which requires any sort of conviction beforehand, as some have posited.

I could be wrong, but I believe that not one single person was convicted of a crime involving serving in the Confederate Army or Government. And the 14th Amendment was very much aimed at those people.
In fact, I will go even further and say the 14th Amendment was passed at least in part because US Grant made it nigh impossible to prosecute anyone for a crime who served in the army of the Confederacy by his terms of the Surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia and his insistance to Andrew johnson that when he paroled them he said they would not be prosecuted and he meant it. At the time, Johnson wanted to start hanging people and Grant, who was much more polular told him in no uncertain terms that he couldn't.

Grant was a little tiny man, but he filled the fucking room when he wanted to.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

I'll just drop this here.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

[Frater I*I]

I could be wrong, but I believe that not one single person was convicted of a crime involving serving in the Confederate Army or Government.

You would be incorrect...

Captain Henry Wirz, Commandant of Camp Sumter...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wirz

[MN-Skeptic]

-
Not Colorado, but Minnesota -

Trump on the ballot? 6 key questions ahead of Minnesota Supreme Court hearing

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday is set to hear oral arguments in a case aiming to block former President Donald Trump from future ballots, a high-stakes showdown that focuses on how his actions after the prior election should factor into his latest run.

Voters and nonprofit government watchdog groups have filed several similar lawsuits across the country. They argue that the Republican front-runner in the 2024 presidential contest engaged in insurrection through his words and actions around Jan. 6, 2021.

And they contend a Civil War-era constitutional amendment is grounds for keeping a candidate out of federal office, so state officials shouldn’t allow Trump to file for the 2024 presidential primary.

Trump’s attorneys and Republican backers have said the former president’s words and actions didn’t amount to participation in an insurrection. They argue that Congress — not state courts or election offices — should be the ones to determine who is removed or barred from office.

The arguments Thursday move forward the case that is expected to be one of the quickest — if not the quickest — to yield a result.

It’s possible that, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court could weigh in on the validity of the constitutional amendment at the crux of the lawsuit.

More at the link above.

[MN-Skeptic]

Since there won't be more information about the Minnesota case until it's decided, I'll just supply a gift link the StarTribune's article here about today's hearing -

Supreme Court Chief Hudson asks if court should disqualify Trump — even if it can

Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson posed a basic question Thursday at the outset of oral arguments on a petition seeking to use the U.S. Constitution's insurrection clause to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot.

If the court's justices agree that they have the ability to bar Trump, "'Should we' is the question that concerns me most," the chief said. She raised the prospect of chaos if 50 state courts decide differently on Trump's eligibility. "So should we do it?" she asked.

The question went to Ronald Fein, lawyer for a bipartisan coalition including the national nonprofit Free Speech for People, former Secretary of State Joan Growe and former Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson.

Hudson noted that prior cases on ballot disqualification gave mixed guidance on the issue. "Doesn't that suggest we use caution and some judicial restraint and maintain the status quo?" she asked.

Fein countered that there is "ample authority" to disqualify Trump and that the constitutional directive to the court is that it shall disqualify Trump.

The questioning from the bench was the first peek at what the justices might be thinking on the petition seeking to bar Trump from the Minnesota ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The insurrection clause prohibits former officers from holding office again if they've "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" or "given aid or comfort" to those who did.

In a 70-minute session, the court heard from four attorneys representing the coalition, Secretary of State Steve Simon, Trump, his campaign and the state GOP. When the session wrapped, Hudson commended the lawyers for their arguments and said the court would decide in "due course," which means whenever it wants.

More at the link above.

[Rolodex]

Here's a live tweet thread from the MN case. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 58084.html

The CO case is still ongoing. Rep Ken Buck (an R rep who is not running again) has been testifying. Lots of q's about the J6 committee itself, which I'm not sure is relevant but IANAL so what do I know. He's emphasized several times how glad he is to be getting out of congress. He voted in favor of confirming the election.

Both of these cases have mentioned that this case will/should end up at SCOTUS.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Here's a live tweet thread from the MN case. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 58084.html

The CO case is still ongoing. Rep Ken Buck (an R rep who is not running again) has been testifying. Lots of q's about the J6 committee itself, which I'm not sure is relevant but IANAL so what do I know. He's emphasized several times how glad he is to be getting out of congress. He voted in favor of confirming the election.

Both of these cases have mentioned that this case will/should end up at SCOTUS.

Running X-crement?

[Rolodex]

Here's a live tweet thread from the MN case. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1720 ... 58084.html

The CO case is still ongoing. Rep Ken Buck (an R rep who is not running again) has been testifying. Lots of q's about the J6 committee itself, which I'm not sure is relevant but IANAL so what do I know. He's emphasized several times how glad he is to be getting out of congress. He voted in favor of confirming the election.

Both of these cases have mentioned that this case will/should end up at SCOTUS.

Running X-crement?

Still the only place I know to get live ... um updates as an event is occurring.

[Reality Check]

Still the only place I know to get live ... um updates as an event is occurring.

Yes, unfortunately Xitter or whatever the f--- it is these days is still the only place to really follow stuff like this live. However, it was much easier when I had access to Tweetdeck. Screw Elmo for making that a paid feature. I have Threads, Mastodon, and Post but they just are not there yet.

[Reality Check]

Since we already had a topic on this subject could this new one be combined with this one?
viewtopic.php?p=225763#p225763

[Flatpoint High]

Still the only place I know to get live ... um updates as an event is occurring.

Yes, unfortunately Xitter or whatever the f--- it is these days is still the only place to really follow stuff like this live. However, it was much easier when I had access to Tweetdeck. Screw Elmo for making that a paid feature. I have Threads, Mastodon, and Post but they just are not there yet.

The MN (MO?) case is being streamed via YouTube

[Rolodex]

Still the only place I know to get live ... um updates as an event is occurring.

Yes, unfortunately Xitter or whatever the f--- it is these days is still the only place to really follow stuff like this live. However, it was much easier when I had access to Tweetdeck. Screw Elmo for making that a paid feature. I have Threads, Mastodon, and Post but they just are not there yet.

The MN (MO?) case is being streamed via YouTube

The MN case and the CO case were both live streamed - and they were going at the same time, so I could only listen to one and follow tweets on the other. Plus Orly was over there livetweeting Eastman's clown show. AND today were closing arguments in SBF case AND trump fraud trial continuing (Uday and Qusay on the stand today).

[Rolodex]

Still the only place I know to get live ... um updates as an event is occurring.

Yes, unfortunately Xitter or whatever the f--- it is these days is still the only place to really follow stuff like this live. However, it was much easier when I had access to Tweetdeck. Screw Elmo for making that a paid feature. I have Threads, Mastodon, and Post but they just are not there yet.

It's heartbreaking. I've curated my twit-x feed so that I don't see a lot of crazy (unless elmo flips me back to "for you) which happens on my table from time to time, but I'm mostly on my laptop). I don't interact with the nuts, so my algo is pretty tame. I'm on bluesky which is way not there yet. Not going on threads bc it's not on laptop.

My family and I all live in natural disaster zones, so having twitter hashtags to follow events/see pics is such a good use of the platform for me.