Supreme Court agrees to hear Colorado case over Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility

There is no choice; they must hear this case and resolve it quickly.

talk about the ultimate game of political hot potato for the 9 justices. I wonder if thomas will recuse himself.

Yeah this must be up there in their list of worst nightmares.

I strongly suspect that they will take the safest path.   Navigating that path will be quite a challenge unless they simply punt and say that Trump is eligible because he has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection, or a crime of rebellion, or a crime of giving aid and comfort to enemies. 

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

anyone's guess is as good as any other, but the way general legal media consensus has it, SCOTUS reversing the CO/SC decision is going to leave a lot of egg on some conservative jurist faces. most analysis says the CO/SC decision was crafted to support conservative constitutional originalist dogma.

Yes it is hard to predict how they will rule.   But I will be quite surprised if they do not rule in a manner that minimizes disruption and offers the highest safety for the court.

... the path of least resistance.  

I wonder if thomas will recuse himself.

That would require integrity.

not only that, but all the rich white federalist friends he's made on the job wouldn't like it much...

Yes it is hard to predict how they will rule.

I don't think so.

It is likely that they will rule in such a way that Trump stays on the ballot and the voters decide.   Categorically, that seems like the safest approach.

How they will rule, however, is a matter of much debate.   I do not get the impression that you are a legal scholar or a litigator who has argued cases before the SCotUS so I will listen more to those who do have said credentials who outline various possibilities and typically end with the admission that they do not know which option the SCotUS will take.

Note that since they have agreed to take the case, Trump is automatically on all ballots.   Thus they could also just stall.   Not likely, but yet another possibility.

How they will rule, however, is a matter of much debate.

Not to unbiased legal experts.


It is likely that they will rule in such a way that Trump stays on the ballot and the voters decide.

It is likely they will decide that the attempts to take Trump off the ballot are unfounded and dangerous.


I do not get the impression that you are a legal scholar or a litigator who has argued cases before the SCotUS

Obviously, neither are you and yet you posted the article. 

Oh, that's right it's a discussion site.

That's funny.  Ginni, I mean Clarence, I don't see him recusing  

What's his name?  Harlan Crow?  who has a room and statues devoted to Nazi memorabilia and Token, I mean Thomas, is in his pocket, I mean, one of his closest friends.  

You made a definitive statement that you know what the SCotUS is going to do.  In contrast, I offered possibilities and have not claimed that I know what they will do.

Big difference.    And, yes, this is a discussion site so opining on what might take place or what is likely to happen is exactly what most do.

he has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection, or a crime of rebellion, or a crime of giving aid and comfort to enemies. 

True, but I don't believe Section 3 would apply to the President, since he is not considered an officer. 

True, but I don't believe Section 3 would apply to the President, since he is not considered an officer. 

If the president is not an officer of the United States who has taken an oath of office, what is he?

Does it really make sense that the president, V.P., SoS, etc. (all those not explicitly called out) who all take oaths of office are somehow exempt from the eligibility clause?    What logic would support that being the intent?

“Does it really make sense…”

Of course not.

Legal wrangling when all facts dismiss any claims, evidence or argument…

Navigating that path will be quite a challenge unless they simply punt and say that Trump is eligible because he has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection, or a crime of rebellion, or a crime of giving aid and comfort to enemies. 

I'm not sure why you would consider this a punt. To me, it is the whole shooting match. Unless one is tried in court, it is simply one's opinion. Suppose Florida takes Biden off the ballot for being a traitor due to the border? 

I don't think Trump committed insurrection. I don't say that because I back Trump. At this point, I don't back anyone but if I did, both Biden and Trump would be at the bottom of the list. That is my opinion. It isn't my truth spoken to power or any of that nonsense. That said, what Colorado and, apparently, some other states are considering doing, is simply based on opinion. How can someone be kept from doing ( some thing) based on perceived guilt when they've never been tried for it? Does this not seem like a slippery slope to you? In my opinion, what Colorado has done is every bit as what many think Trump did. I can't see how it's not the same sort of thing. 

Unless one is tried in court, it is simply one's opinion.

This is a court, not some individual's opinion.   In fact we are talking about the highest court of a state and the highest court in the land.  The SCotUS is perfectly capable and authorized to determine the meaning of words such as 'insurrection' in the constitutional context of the 14^th §3.  And their collective "opinion" will be the decisive factor.

A court, especially a supreme court, can rule on the question of eligibility without ruling on criminality.  They do not need to try and find him guilty of a crime.   They can rule on eligibility (that Trump's actions satisfied the conditions for ineligibility) without ruling on criminality.

The Colorado supreme court did just that.   After a lower court trial on eligibility they then held a trial.   In both cases, Trump's attorneys were able to engage in normal due process ... presenting evidence and making arguments.   They then ruled on eligibility without ruling that Trump was guilty of a crime.

That said, what Colorado and, apparently, some other states are considering doing, is simply based on opinion.

By your logic, every judgment that requires interpretation of the law would be "simply based on opinion".   (As if there is some alternative to legal opinion in matters of judgment.)

The entire legal system then is "simply based on opinion" since at every turn they are applying a real world set of evidence and logic against an interpretation of law.   That is how adjudication works.

If the president is not an officer of the United States who has taken an oath of office, what is he?

He is the "President", if everyone was an officer why, specifically name a Senator or Representative and not the President.  When you look at the Appointments Clause the President appoints Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.  Does the President appoint himself? IMO to read the 14th amendment Section 3 and lump the President of the United States in as just another Officer of the United States is silly. 

This is a court, not some individual's opinion.

 Was it? Did Trump, or anything like a legal team present a case before these "Judges"? That's an honest question. I haven't been following the clown show so I really don't know. 

 The SCotUS is perfectly capable and authorized to determine the meaning of words such as 'insurrection' in the constitutional context of the 14^th §3.  And their collective "opinion" will be the decisive factor.

This sounds as if you are advocating for objective morality. Are you?

A court, especially a supreme court, can rule on the question of eligibility without ruling on criminality.  They do not need to try and find him guilty of a crime.   They can rule on eligibility (that Trump's actions satisfied the conditions for ineligibility) without ruling on criminality.

Apparently you are. Fascinating. 

The Colorado supreme court did just that.   After a lower court trial on eligibility they then held a trial.   In both cases, Trump's attorneys were able to engage in normal due process ... presenting evidence and making arguments.   They then ruled on eligibility without ruling that Trump was guilty of a crime.

So, if I understand this correctly, because they are a "Supreme" court, they can find someone guilty without proving guilt? That is literally what your statement says. 

By your logic, every judgment that requires interpretation of the law would be "simply based on opinion".   (As if there is some alternative to legal opinion in matters of judgment.) The entire legal system then is "simply based on opinion" since at every turn they are applying a real world set of evidence and logic against an interpretation of law.   That is how adjudication works.

It isn't my logic. It is simply how our legal system works.  Or is supposed to. It's what presumably separates us from North Korea for instance. Jeffrey Dahmer was sent to prison based on opinion informed by evidence. 

I wonder. Did the Colorado Supreme Court issue an arrest warrant for Trump? If Trump enters Colorado, will he be arrested for a crime? Because without that, it really is merely the Colorado Supreme Court's personal, and not legal, opinion. 

Good grief man.   The word 'officer' has a well established, encompassing meaning.   If the CotUS does not define a term specifically then the meaning of the term is determined by 1) the meaning of the word, 2) the contextual usage of the word elsewhere in the CotUS, 3) the historical meaning of the word at the time of writing.

The word officer means:  " one who holds an office of trust, authority, or command " or  " a holder of a public, civil, or ecclesiastical office. "

You want to argue the the PotUS is not an officer per the meaning of this word???   This tactic of denying the meaning of English words is a loser.  

Does the President appoint himself?

There is nothing that suggests an officer must by " appointed ".   You are inventing criteria that do not exist.   That is, you are trying to redefine the word 'officer' to meet your desires.

Did Trump, or anything like a legal team present a case before these "Judges"?

Yes.   Did you not watch the trial?  

And why quote the word 'Judges'?   Do you not believe these people are judges?

This sounds as if you are advocating for objective morality. Are you?

Drakk, seriously?   What value is it to toss in shit like this?

So, if I understand this correctly, because they are a "Supreme" court, they can find someone guilty without proving guilt?

It is obvious that you are not even attempting to be serious.   I have stated clearly that the supreme court was not ruling on a criminal matter but rather on eligibility.   They did not say Trump was guilty of a crime, but rather that he is ineligible.

You can see this clearly yet you still formulate the obnoxious question just quoted.

It is simply how our legal system works.

Our system, as I described, works on opinion.   Every judge, every jury member is forming an opinion based on the evidence and arguments presented to them.   Their collective opinions then determine the ruling.  

I wonder. Did the Colorado Supreme Court issue an arrest warrant for Trump?

And yet again you refuse to acknowledge reality.   The Colorado supreme court did not find Trump guilty of a crime.   They found that he is ineligible to hold office.   Ineligibility is not a crime.

He is the "President", if everyone was an officer why, specifically name a Senator or Representative and not the President.  When you look at the Appointments Clause the President appoints Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.  Does the President appoint himself? IMO to read the 14th amendment Section 3 and lump the President of the United States in as just another Officer of the United States is silly. 

This was an interesting read on this exact subject and they conclude that Trump was not an officer in the United States.

After the Senate trial, Trump was not convicted. Therefore, he could not be disqualified from holding future office pursuant to the Impeachment Disqualification Clause. But even after Trump’s acquittal, efforts to disqualify the former President based on Section 3 continue. For example, there is a pending concurrent resolution that would find “President Donald J. Trump ‘as an officer of the United States . . . engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States], or g[ave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof,’ making him ineligible for future office . . . .” This resolution assumed that the President is an “officer of the United States.”

We disagree. There is some good reason to think the President is not an “officer of the United States.” President Trump, who swore only one constitutional oath, does not fall within Section 3’s jurisdictional element. Therefore, he cannot be disqualified pursuant to this provision.  Is the President an “Officer of the United States” for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment? — NYU Journal of Law & Liberty (nyujll.com)

This was only out of part 1 of the paper, there is a link at the bottom of the linked page that provides the full paper. They chart out why in their opinion this will be resolved by the court and that Trump was not an officer of the United States and therefore is not disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The question is not whether Trump has been legally charged with insurrection, it is whether he took part in and or gave comfort to those who did.  

Late on Jan 6th , Trump directed a message toward the Capitol mob. he told them he loved them, and they had been cheated, and they should "remember this day forever". All this was AFTER Trump knew they had broke into the Capitol, tried to bash down barricaded doors, fought with an injured dozens of police, and entered the Senate chamber.  I think those words in Trumps written message (over twitter) well complies with the "aid and comfort" phrase. 

A determination was made in a Colorado court that Trump was disqualified to hold office based on the sort of things I just said. The Constitutional amendment pertaining to this does not require a criminal conviction. Would you concede that sending a message to active rioters at the national legislature telling them to "remember this day forever" is giving comfort ? 

“ These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” Trump wrote in a message that was later deleted by Twitter . He added, “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”

In an earlier video he had praised the protesters as “special” people and said he understood their pain. Twitter later locked his account for the first time as it demanded he remove the tweets and threatened “permanent suspension.”

'Remember this day forever!' Trump says after Capitol violence (boston.com)

Yes.   Did you not watch the trial?

a) "That's an honest question. I haven't been following the clown show so I really don't know.: 

b) Since this is about the Colorado Supreme court, those were the judges I am referring to. 

Drakk, seriously?   What value is it to toss in shit like this?

Yes. Seriously. Your argument, as far as I can tell, seems to rest on the word "Supreme", as if their ruling was objective. 

It is obvious that you are not even attempting to be serious.  

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant. In my opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court is guilty of the very thing they accuse Trump of. 

I have stated clearly that the supreme court was not ruling on a criminal matter but rather on eligibility.   They did not say Trump was guilty of a crime, but rather that he is ineligible.

I find it incomprehensible that you can write these sentences and not see the problem.

You can see this clearly yet you still formulate the obnoxious question just quoted.

You literally validated the "obnoxious" question. How can "ineligibility" be determined without a crime??? Without that, the Colorado Supreme Court is simply using their position as a political weapon. 

Our system, as I described, works on opinion.   Every judge, every jury member is forming an opinion based on the evidence and arguments presented to them.   Their collective opinions then determine the ruling.

Except in this case, we have a ruling of ineligibility without conviction. "You have not been found guilty but we will punish you anyway." I can only assume that this doesn't bother you because of your emotional involvement in this issue. 

And yet again you refuse to acknowledge reality.   The Colorado supreme court did not find Trump guilty of a crime.   The found that he is ineligible to hold office.   Ineligibility is not a crime.

Odd that you are so blind to the flaw in your own argument. If the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is not based on a crime, upon what basis do they find Trump ineligible? 

There was a trial.   You understand that now.

How can "ineligibility" be determined without a crime???

By determining that Trump violated the intent of the eligibility clause.    You seem to be under the impression that both courts in Colorado do not have the legal authority to rule on eligibility without finding Trump guilty of a crime.   Clearly they can and have done so.

If the Colorado Supreme Court's decision is not based on a crime, upon what basis do they find Trump ineligible? 

Violating the intent of the eligibility clause.   You seem to be unaware that courts of law are able to focus on a single question.   The question here is:  "is Trump eligible".   It is not "is Trump guilty of a crime of insurrection" (e.g. 18 U.S. Code § 2383).

So, using your parameters, Clinton could also be cleared by the CSC, right?  I mean there was no trial, no hearings, no witnesses, no charges - just six Dem/Lib judges who don't think Trump (or anyone else opposed to their views) should be on the ballot.

And, surprisingly, SCOTUS, under their Constitutional "requirements" ( The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution) are going to have to make a decision of attempting to follow the "Law and Equity" of the extremely biased CSC?????

1st - what LAW, that was issued under the guise of the Constitution, was violated?  Many here are CLAIMING that " shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" applies to Trump when, IN FACT, there have been no charges NOR INDICTMENTS supporting the Dem/Lib stupendous desire to crucify Trump for actions that were NOT taken - only surmised.

2nd - where, in fact, is any of the EQUITY that is required resultant to either the CSC debacle/biased political (DEFINITELY NOT ON ANY LEGAL STIPULATION) or the "case" being PUSHED into SCOTUS's bullpen.  Remember what equity is??  " the quality of being fair and  impartial ."  Show us where the "fair and impartial" LEGAL decisions were presented for support.

Many in the U.S. are complaining 'bout the decisiveness being presented in U.S. politics.  Look at the responses in this thread alone - and guess where that decisiveness is coming from?

So, using your parameters, Clinton could also be cleared by the CSC, right? 

What, specifically, do you think are my parameters?

I mean there was no trial, no hearings, no witnesses, no charges - just six Dem/Lib judges who don't think Trump (or anyone else opposed to their views) should be on the ballot.

You are not aware that two trials took place??

IN FACT, there have been no charges NOR INDICTMENTS

Read my responses to Drakk.  I am not going to keep repeating myself.   You have to put forth an effort.

 Show us where the "fair and impartial" LEGAL decisions were presented for support.

Two trials took place.   In both cases, Trump's attorneys were there making legal arguments.   I suspect you will never consider any ruling against Trump to be fair and impartial.

How can "ineligibility" be determined without a crime???

By determining that Trump violated the intent of the eligibility clause.

Absolutely fascinating! You seem to think you've answered the question to your argument's benefit rather than detriment. If you think otherwise, please explain how you are using the word "violated". 

You seem to be under the impression that both courts in Colorado do not have the legal authority to rule on eligibility without finding Trump guilty of a crime.   Clearly they can and have done so.

Clearly, they have done so, yes. Apparently, however, it seems to be necessary to point out to you that this is an argument from authority; a logical fallacy. And it seems to escape you that they may not have the legal authority to do what they did, else it would not be going to SCOTUS. Do you understand that? 

Violating the intent of the eligibility clause.   You seem to be unaware that courts of law are able to focus on a single question.   The question here is:  "is Trump eligible".   It is not "is Trump guilty of a crime of insurrection" (e.g. 18 U.S. Code § 2383).

Why are you doing this, TiG? Why are you attempting to divorce "is Trump eligible" from a violation of law? If such a determination is not based upon law, what do you consider it based on? You yourself cite 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Please explain to everyone how Trump can be found ineligible according to 18 U.S. Code § 2383 without being found guilty of it in a court of law.

The question is not whether Trump has been legally charged with insurrection, it is whether he took part in and or gave comfort to those who did. 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand how do you determine that without charges???????????????? Do you just skip that part and just declare it? 

There is nothing that suggests an officer must by " appointed ".

Help me out here, what is Article II, Section2, Clause 2: referring to? 

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Our system, as I described, works on opinion.   Every judge, every jury member is forming an opinion based on the evidence and arguments presented to them.   Their collective opinions then determine the ruling.  

You left out the most important part! They form their opinion BASED ON THE LAW!

You are repeating yourself (with venom).   Do you think that my rebuttal will change?

... an argument from authority; a logical fallacy ...

Stop with this nonsense, Drakk.   A court has the legal authority to put its collective opinions into effect.   That is not an argument from authority (claiming something is truth because an authority says so), it is the exercise of actual constitutional authority (making a legal ruling — a legal ruling is not necessarily truth, it is a legal determination).

Why are you attempting to divorce "is Trump eligible" from a violation of law? 

The question is why are you trying to force a determination of guilt of a crime when all that is required is a determination of eligibility.   The SCotUS will have to make the final ruling, but §3 of the 14^th does not define the word 'insurrection' and certainly does not refer to a specific crime of insurrection.   

If you wish to argue that it would be much cleaner if Trump were found guilty of a crime of insurrection then I certainly agree.  But I do not agree that Trump must be found guilty of some crime before a court of law can conclude that he violated the intent of §3 of the 14^th.

If the SCotUS rules that Trump must first be found guilty of a specific crime then that will settle this.   Until then, there is nothing stopping a court from determining that Trump met the requirements to be ineligible (ruling on eligibility alone) by engaging in insurrection without finding him guilty of a crime of insurrection (ruling on criminal guilt).

They form their opinion BASED ON THE LAW!

Do I have to state everything explicitly?   Do you really think it is not obvious that a court of law ultimately is dealing with the law?

Help me out here, what is Article II, Section2, Clause 2: referring to? 

What, specifically, is your question?   I am sure I have already answered it, but just to be certain, ask a specific question.

Anticipating:   The fact that the PotUS appoints all other officers does not mean the the PotUS itself is not an officer.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand how do you determine that without charges????????????????

Do you truly not see how a court can determine that Trump "engaged in insurrection" for the purposes of determining eligibility without first finding him legally guilty of a crime that falls under the category of insurrection?

Two courts did.   This is valid unless the SCotUS states that it is not.

does not mean the the PotUS itself is not an officer.

Has that been decided?

Not by the SCotUS, but it has been decided for the state of Colorado (unless overruled by the SCotUS).   

This might be one of the items they decide.   Hard to say.

You are repeating yourself (with venom).

Yes, but not with venom. Perhaps it seems that way due to the weakness of your argument. 

Do you think that my rebuttal will change?

I can't recall one instance where you admitted you were wrong, so, no. 

 A court has the legal authority to put its collective opinions into effect.   That is not an argument from authority (claiming something is truth because an authority says so), it is the exercise of actual constitutional authority (making a legal ruling — a legal ruling is not necessarily truth, it is a legal determination).

without a conviction of a crime, that is exactly what it is. Judgement by authority rather than fact. 

The question is why are you trying to force a determination of guilt of a crime when all that is required is a determination of eligibility.

For the same reason I am against putting someone in prison or denying them a place in society simply because someone accuses them of a crime. Think Brett Kavanaugh, for instance. 

If you wish to argue that it would be much cleaner if Trump were found guilty of a crime of insurrection then I certainly agree.  But I do not agree that Trump must be found guilty of some crime before a court of law can conclude that he violated the intent of §3 of the 14^th.

I find it incomprehensible that you cannot see your error. How is it possible to claim he violated the section without conviction? Without conviction, it is simply declared to be true, regardless of facts. 

If the SCotUS rules that Trump must first be found guilty of a specific crime then that will settle this.

Obviously. 

Until then, there is nothing stopping a court from determining that Trump met the requirements to be ineligible (ruling on eligibility alone) by engaging in insurrection without finding him guilty of a crime of insurrection (ruling on criminal guilt).

Unbelievable. You are literally stating that they can determine him ineligible without proving he is. At this point I can only assume you're arguing from bias rather than truth. That is, you don't care what is fair or just, you just want the outcome. I don't see how it could be anything else. 

without a conviction of a crime, that is exactly what it is. Judgement by authority rather than fact. 

A conviction is a judgment by authority.   A court of law considers the evidence, the arguments, the applicable law and renders a judgment.   That judgment and the execution thereof is by legal authority, it is not necessarily truth.   

For the same reason I am against putting someone in prison or denying them a place in society simply because someone accuses them of a crime.

Trump is not being fined or placed in prison.   This is a question of eligibility, not criminality.   

How is it possible to claim he violated the section without conviction? 

I can explain this yet again, but you clearly refuse to acknowledge my answer and refuse to recognize that both the lower court and the supreme court did exactly what you find impossible.  

You are literally stating that they can determine him ineligible without proving he is. 

No, I am stating that they can find him ineligible without finding him guilty of a crime.   In fact, two courts have already done so.   And their rulings stand unless the SCotUS overrules them.

You are not making an argument.   You are simply repeating yourself with increasing levels of snark, incredulity, and making this personal.

Trump is not being fined or placed in prison.   This is a question of eligibility, not criminality.

Insurrection is a crime. It has penalties. Fines and prison. How do you determine that one is ineligible due to "insurrection" but not subject to the penalties for same? 

You are not making an argument.   You are simply repeating yourself with increasing levels of snark, incredulity, and making this personal.

This is what you always say when anyone challenges your view. 

Why are you doing this, TiG? Why are you attempting to divorce "is Trump eligible" from a violation of law? If such a determination is not based upon law, what do you consider it based on? You yourself cite 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Please explain to everyone how Trump can be found ineligible according to 18 U.S. Code § 2383 without being found guilty of it in a court of law.

So, according to you, a court cannot determine if an entity has engaged in insurection using the legal definition unless and until another court has found that the entity has met the criteria and in order to do that the entity must first be brought up on charges of criminal insurrection? 

Then how do you square the circle of being aquitted in a criminal matter yet being found responsible and penalized in a civil proceeding? The two matters are different, which I think is what TiG is aluding to. It does not take the findings of a criminal court to determine culpability.

How do you determine that one is ineligible due to "insurrection" but not subject to the penalties for same? 

It isn't that difficult to sus out. A civil court nearly everyday finds someone guilty of numerous offenses like sexual assault without awarding them a criminal felony. We have criminal courts award not guilty rulings on murder charges and civil courts awarding wrongful death awards on the same incidents all the time.

I'm so dizzy my head is spinning . . . we've got some real spin doctors around here, real pros.

But, but, but, that's just your opinion TiG

Why do you deflect to Bill Clinton?  What does he have to do with ANYTHING?

Insurrection is a crime. It has penalties. Fines and prison. How do you determine that one is ineligible due to "insurrection" but not subject to the penalties for same? 

By focusing on the question of eligibility and not addressing the question of criminality.    This is what the courts did.   You do not like it.  That is fine, but constantly asking the same question after it has been repeatedly answered is pointless.

This is what you always say when anyone challenges your view. 

First of all this is a demonstrable lie as evidenced by the fact that I patiently addressed your repeated questions and challenges.   Only after your repeated arguments, your snark, etc. did I point out that you are just repeating yourself and no longer making an argument.

Second, since I have been addressing your challenges with facts and logic, your implication that I am dodging with a platitude is also clearly false.  

Knock it off, Drakk.   

Two courts have, in the Trump eligibility case, ruled exactly the way you claim is impossible.

So recognize that.

The SCotUS could rule that these courts ruled improperly.   If so, then their rulings would be ipso facto improper.   But unless the SCotUS rules that they are wrong to rule as they did, their ruling is proper and carries the full authority of that court.

but it has been decided for the state of Colorado

They decided "he was an Officer"?

Yes, that was the purpose of the appeal.    

Trump’s attorneys convinced Wallace that, because the language in Section 3 refers to “officers of the United States” who take an oath to “support” the Constitution, it must not apply to the president, who is not included as an “officer of the United States” elsewhere in the document and whose oath is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.

The provision also says offices covered include senator, representative, electors of the president and vice president, and all others “under the United States,” but doesn’t name the presidency.

The state’s highest court didn’t agree, siding with attorneys for six Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters who argued that it was nonsensical to imagine that the framers of the amendment, fearful of former confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land .

“President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

apnews

You do not like it.

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I simply find it incomprehensible. It is imposing a sentence without an actual charge or determination of guilt. Again, if Trump was found guilty of insurrection, a serious crime, by two different courts, where is the sentence? How is he not in jail? 

Two courts have, in the Trump eligibility case, ruled exactly the way you claim is impossible.

Where did I say it was impossible? More importantly, how can you claim to have responded with facts and logic when you apparently don't understand my argument in the first place, as evidenced by this statement? Sedition and insurrection are serious crimes. If, in fact, Trump is guilty of either, I'm all for him going to prison and being fined. If these two courts found Trump guilty of insurrection, which I don't dispute that they did, but only say that he is ineligible to run for President and ignore or otherwise do not address the penalties such crimes stipulate, how can he be said to have been found guilty? When that is the case, does it not seem to you, a supposedly reasonable person, that the actual goal is to prevent him from running for President? Is that not election interference? Are they not, in their own roundabout way, doing exactly what they accuse Trump of doing? What else can it be when you ignore the consequences for the crime except the one that matters politically? 

Second, since I have been addressing your challenges with facts and logic...

No, actually, you haven't been. Not the logic, anyway. You simply keep repeating courts have determined that Trump was found guilty of insurrection, holding that up as if it were some sort of talisman, without explaining why it's logical that they did so but without stating why implementation of sentence was not determined, let alone imposed. You simply state that they are a court and so that makes it okay. That isn't logic. That is simply argument from authority. 

Knock it off, Drakk.  

Knock what off? Trying to get you to address my argument? Specifically, how is this not a political move as opposed to actual legal justice? These courts didn't impose a sentence even though they determined guilt. They didn't file a warrant for Trump's arrest. Didn't file for extradition. Nothing except try to keep him off the ballot. And your "logical" argument is that it's okay because they're courts. 

The SCotUS could rule that these courts ruled improperly.   If so, then their ruling would be ipso facto improper.   But unless the SCotUS rules that they are wrong to rule as they did, their ruling is proper and carries the full authority of that court.

This is a perfect example of why you don't seem to have a clue as to what my argument is. This is totally an argument from authority. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care how the SCOTUS rules on this. This is me, asking you the person, whether you are okay with a court doing this when it is blatantly obvious they don't really think insurrection was committed as evidenced by no penalty such a crime requires. 

I told you one of the ways this can be determined. Trump tweeted out comfort to the jan 6 rioters.  The court concluded that the event was an insurrection. Therefore trump gave comfort to insurrectionists, triggering the disqualification. 

I know you understand all this , so why the repetitive complaining? He doesnt have to be convicted . 

I simply find it incomprehensible. It is imposing a sentence without an actual charge or determination of guilt. 

The court did not impose a sentence.   They ruled on eligibility.

When Ted Cruz was running, there was a question of eligibility.   If he had secured the nomination, there would have been a ruling by courts on his eligibility to be PotUS due to his Canadian birth.   It would be a ruling on eligibility and no sentencing would apply.   For Trump, this is a ruling on eligibility only and thus no sentencing.   Again, they are ruling on the question of eligibility and not ruling on criminality.  

Your inability to comprehend how an individual can be found to engage in insurrection (" an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government ") without being convicted of an insurrection crime is not going to be resolved by constantly repeating yourself.   You reject the two courts that ruled this way (as if you are better qualified) so you must wait for the SCotUS to rule.   If they rule similarly what will you disregard their ruling too?

Where did I say it was impossible?

Here:

Drakk @1.1.39 ☞  How is it possible to claim he violated the section without conviction? 

You are challenging the possibility ... are you going to now claim this is not you holding that it is impossible ?

... how can you claim to have responded with facts and logic when you apparently don't understand my argument in the first place, as evidenced by this statement? 

I just proved my statement was correct with the above quote.   Pay attention to what you are writing.

If these two courts found Trump guilty of insurrection, which I don't dispute that they did , but only say that he is ineligible to run for President and ignore or otherwise do not address the penalties such crimes stipulate, how can he be said to have been found guilty?

They DID NOT FIND TRUMP GUILTY OF ANY CRIME.   

You simply keep repeating courts have determined that Trump was found guilty of insurrection, holding that up as if it were some sort of talisman, without explaining why it's logical that they did so but without stating why implementation of sentence was not determined, let alone imposed. You simply state that they are a court and so that makes it okay. That isn't logic. That is simply argument from authority. 

 You profile my argument and claim it is not an argument.    And then you go back to the nonsense about argument from authority. 

No sentence was imposed because Trump was not found guilty of a crime.   Hello? 

Courts are holders of legal authority.   Hello?   You claiming that noting this is an argument for authority is truly ridiculous.

Trying to get you to address my argument? 

So now you are claiming that all my detailed responses to you are not addressing your argument.    You are really grasping at straws. 

This is totally an argument from authority.

An argument from authority states that something is true because an authority says so.

I am stating that two courts with the legal authority to make a ruling on this matter have done so and that they ruled on eligibility and not on criminality.   I am not arguing some truth based on authority but rather the facts of their ruling and their authority to make said ruling.

They are legally empowered to rule on Trump's eligibility question without ruling on whether or not Trump committed a crime.  That is simply a fact unless the SCotUS rules otherwise.

Deal with it, Drakk.  

Two courts have ruled that Trump's actions meet the criteria for ineligibility according to §3 of the 14 ^th .    They did not rule on any specific crime, they ruled on eligibility.   Since they were not addressing criminality, there is no sentence.

As courts, they have legal authority to make these rulings.   Both courts may be overruled by higher courts, but unless overruled, their ruling stands because of this legal authority.

Although I do not think this is likely, but if the SCotUS were to agree that Trump's actions meet the meaning of "engaging in an insurrection" would you deem their ruling invalid?

Two trials were held on the question of Trump's eligibility and not on criminality.

Here is the SC of CO trial.   

It does not matter if you find this incomprehensible.   Courts of law make legal determinations and have the authority to do so.   Courts may (and do) decide on one question in an otherwise complex matter and not rule on the balance of relevant questions.   

Ruling on eligibility without determining if Trump is guilty of some specific crime is not unusual.

I know you understand all this , so why the repetitive complaining? He doesnt have to be convicted . 

Indeed.

I hope you don't keep track of how many times you explain your position to each individual trump defender. 

Often I must explain over half a dozen times.

They DID NOT FIND TRUMP GUILTY OF ANY CRIME.   

THEN ON WHAT BASIS DID THEY DETERMINE HE WAS INELIGABLE TO APPEAR ON THE  BALLOT????????????????????????????????? 

You write programs, TiG. This is as simple as an If/Then statement. Figure it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have already answered your question.    Repeatedly.    You are not listening.

So let's try something different:   cato

Finally, the Court addressed whether Trump had engaged in insurrection, making him ineligible for office. Using contemporaneous dictionary definitions , the district court had concluded that “an insurrection as used in Section Three is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.”

The Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged that there is no precise definition; an insurrection is something more than disturbing the peace, but less than an all‐​out rebellion. Nevertheless, “any definition of ‘insurrection’ for purposes of Section Three” would at least include “a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power in this country.” Based on the district court’s extensive factual findings (which can only be overturned based on clear error), that standard was met .

For example, there was substantial evidence in the record that even before the November 2020 election, President Trump was “laying the groundwork for a claim that the election was rigged.” Trump invited his supporters to come to Washington on January 6 and, once there, repeatedly called on them to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” He told them that, given the circumstances, they weren’t subject to normal rules. They needed to “show strength,” or it would be the end of the country. He then refused to call them off, even when he was aware of the threat of violence. In fact, when told that the Capitol mob was chanting, “Hang Mike Pence,” Trump responded that perhaps the vice president deserved to be hanged.

He did not just incite the mob, he continued to “aid the unlawful purpose of stopping the peaceful transfer of power” by demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty, calling senators and demanding that they stop the count, and speaking to his followers. For many hours, he succeeded in his aim of delaying the count.

Trump contended that all of that was mere free speech protected by the First Amendment. But using a straightforward incitement test, the court determined that his speech was not protected. Because “(1) the speech explicitly or implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action; (2) the speaker intended that the speech would result in the use of violence or lawless action; and (3) the imminent use of violence or lawless action was the likely result of the speech,” Trump had done nothing less than issue a call to arms.

I think what I don't understand is that the first trial they found that Trump did engage in insurrection. Yet there was no punishment. How can a state court find that someone has engaged in insurrection, isn't that a federal crime?

They did not find him guilty of a crime.  They did not even attempt to do so since they were deciding eligibility not criminality.

They found that he satisfied the terms of the 14th §3 regarding insurrection.

This is true for both courts.

The lower court, however, was persuaded by Trump's attorneys that he was not necessarily an officer and thus they ruled it did not apply.   The SC of CO disagreed on that point.

Didn't say they found him guilty of a crime, but they did find him guilty of having engaged in insurrection. As insurrection is a federal crime, how can a state court rule on that? This is one of the holes in the process that SCOTUS needs to address. 

Didn't say they found him guilty of a crime, but they did find him guilty of having engaged in insurrection. As insurrection is a federal crime, how can a state court rule on that? This is one of the holes in the process that SCOTUS needs to address. 

Why would you expect punishment if they did not find him guilty of a crime?

The courts both ruled that Trump satisfied the conditions of "engaging in insurrection" in the 14th § 3.   That is not a criminal finding, it is an eligibility ruling.

Since they did not even attempt to try him criminally, they obviously did not find him guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383.  

Since they did not even attempt to try him criminally, they obviously did not find him guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383.  

AND THEREFORE CANNOT FIND HIM INELIGIBLE FOR RUNNING FOR OFFICE. RIGHT?

But no. Somehow, through some magic unnamed process, you sit here and think we're supposed to believe Trump is guilty without actually having to determine guilt. Apparently he's guilty because.... well... he just is!!! That's what your argument boils down to. Argument from authority. It's true because they are a court and they say it is. For crying out loud, TiG!!! You yourself said it....

Since they did not even attempt to try him criminally, they obviously did not find him guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code § 2383.  

So what DID they base it on??????????????????????????? Just answer that, TiG. How can Trump be declared ineligible without appealing to 18 U.S. Code § 2383? 

And for whatever idiot thinks I'm defending Trump, my argument would be the same for Biden, if he were in that situation. 

Calm down, your posts are growing increasingly shrill and ridiculous.

I answered your questions directly.   Every time I tell you that the courts were considering the question of Trump's eligibility and not criminality.   Thus guilt was never a question.   You ignore my answers and then ask the same questions.

Thus, I referred you to a summary of the decision considerations of the SC of CO @1.1.58.

How can Trump be declared ineligible without appealing to 18 U.S. Code § 2383? 

Read @1.1.58

Maybe you will read the words of a third party.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

At the bare bones Trump gave comfort to the insurrectionists. It is in his tweets from that day. 

It is in plain sight. There doesnt need to be a trial, it is a determination by the court. 

Since your posts illustrate that there is no hope of reasoning with you, I suggest you read what the Colorado court wrote on its ruling.   This yields the same answers (in summary) I provided but goes into significant legal detail.

Colorado Supreme Court Opinion on Trumps Eligibility

LOL, be serious...

I answered your questions directly.

I dunno, TiG. I'm at a loss. If the sentence you wrote after this one is offered as evidence as a direct answer to my question, I have to believe that you believe it is, even though it obviously is not. 

   Every time I tell you that the courts were considering the question of Trump's eligibility and not criminality .   Thus guilt was never a question.   You ignore my answers and then ask the same questions.

Perhaps because there is nothing here that actually answers the question? How is it possible to determine eligibility without first determining criminality? If the determination of ineligibility is not made from a determination of criminality, upon what is that ineligibility based? How do you see " the courts were considering the question of Trump's eligibility and not criminality " as an actual answer to these questions? 

As I pointed out before, this is as simple as an If/then statement. The only way Trump could be ineligible according to 18 U.S. Code § 2383 is if a determination of insurrection was made. Yet you claim that criminality wasn't an issue, inexplicably referring to a quote at @1.1.58 , which absolutely demonstrates they were dealing with the criminality of the issue. If Trump is guilty of insurrection, and I'm not suggesting he isn't, where the is the sentence? Where's the arrest warrant? Where's the extradition paperwork? Where the hell are the consequences??? Because without those, without a legal conviction of an actual crime, this is simply a political move by and activist state SC. That is how it is being viewed by a large section of voters and who can blame them? How can the CSC say Trump is ineligible without an actual conviction of insurrection? Just like your argument so far, it boils down to the CSC saying Trump is ineligible simply because they say he is. 

How can the CSC say Trump is ineligible without an actual conviction of insurrection?

This has been explained to you more times than I care to remember.  

Just like your argument so far, it boils down to the CSC saying Trump is ineligible simply because they say he is. 

The SC of Colorado is an authorized legal body whose jurisdiction is the state of Colorado.   They can indeed rule Trump ineligible and their ruling goes into effect in the state of Colorado.   And the SCotUS can override their ruling (and basically determine that they were wrong).

Trump is, for the state of Colorado, ineligible because the highest court of Colorado conducted a trial where they heard arguments from both sides and then ruled according to the law as they interpret the law.

Also, the SC of CO's decision is automatically stayed since the SCotUS decided to hear the case.   That was an automatic condition of their ruling.

The key problem all along is that for whatever unknown reason you cannot seem to grasp the idea that a court of law can rule on eligibility without ruling on criminality.   They can determine that Trump "engaged in insurrection" per the 14th § 3 (a non-criminal offense in this context) and rule that he is ineligible.   They do not have to first determine a specific crime of insurrection and then find him guilty of that crime.

You refuse to accept this legal reality so I strongly suggest you expand your understanding of how the law works rather than badger me with repeated questions while ignoring my repeated answers.

Read the summary @1.1.58 .   If that is not enough, read the detailed legal opinion.    Colorado Supreme Court Opinion on Trumps Eligibility

This has been explained to you more times than I care to remember.  

Still doesn't make it correct.

If you think I have not properly explained the legal reality here then I have supplied links for you to do your own research.

an exercise in futility...

WWII proverb - shoot down anything that circles the field that many times without trying to land...

There is no choice; they must hear this case and resolve it quickly.

That's true, however they denied hearing Jack Smith and ruling about Trump's claimed absolute immunity.

Yes they did.   But this question is more urgent.

But this question is more urgent.

Is it? 

Trump's claim of absolute immunity of a POTUS would send repercussions throughout the country and effect the very basis of the Constitution by declaring the current POTUS as more of a dictator than an elected representative of the country. 

This will also be addressed if Trump wins reelection since he will undoubtedly attempt to pardon himself from all crimes he is charged with.  Meaning a POTUS can commit any federal crime he so chooses because he can pardon himself and face no punishment, no matter how extreme the crime.

Is it [more urgent]? 

Yes, because of the logistics of ballots.   

Urgency ≡ time sensitive, not (necessarily) more important disregarding time

Urgency ≡ time sensitive, not (necessarily) more important disregarding time

Timely, you are correct, but that does not equate to SCOTUS's refusal to deal with Jack Smith request.  Unless you feel that SCOTUS cannot deal with more than 1 thing at a time.

I have simply spoken of timeliness.   

It is critical (in the big picture) for the SCotUS to rule on Trump's immunity claim.

And I have not even remotely suggested SCotUS cannot work on both in the short term.

I made a comment about urgency (timeliness).

I made a comment about urgency (timeliness).

Hey, I fully agree.  Trump being on the ballot was a more timely, urgent decision for them.  It should have been taken up and decided upon in a timely manner.  My response is that his claim of absolute immunity (which he is using in multiple cases), may be MORE urgent since it directly effects the foundation of our Democracy but LESS timely.  Therefore it also should have been accepted and put on their docket right after the ballot question.

My concern is more with SCOTUS refusing to hear Jack Smith and less with them agreeing to hear the ballot query.  They should have accepted both and just put the decision of the ballot one 1st.  Their refusal to hear it just seems to be another action to delay the trials until after the election.

Their refusal to hear it just seems to be another action to delay the trials until after the election.

It seems so.    I figure they are hoping they will not have to deal with it.

I figure they are hoping they will not have to deal with it.

I think they still will have to deal with it since Georgia will hopefully continue no matter what happens with the federal charges.

I am confident they will have to deal with it.

Unless you feel that SCOTUS cannot deal with more than 1 thing at a time.

I believe SOCTUS refused Smith's case because it did not take the proper appeals process. 

they denied hearing Jack Smith and ruling about Trump's claimed absolute immunity.

They said they would wait for it to go through the appellate courts first.

I believe SOCTUS refused Smith's case because it did not take the proper appeals process.

The process was escalated for Nixon, but different SCOTUS with different priorities today.

They said they would wait for it to go through the appellate courts first.

So as to further delay the actual trial.

So as to further delay the actual trial.

Most likely as to dodge the issue itself for as long as possible. 

Most likely as to dodge the issue itself for as long as possible. 

I have no doubt that is part of Trump's plan, to postpone as long as possible in the hope of winning the 24 election and then he can instruct the DOJ to stop the investigation and trial.  I don't know, is this covered under the statute of limitations? If Trump were to win the Oval Office and postpone this until after he leaves office, would it be too late for the next administration to restart this?

I have no doubt that is part of Trump's plan

Yes, this seems to be Trump's plan. He's used it many time prior to being President. 

I don't know, is this covered under the statute of limitations? If Trump were to win the Oval Office and postpone this until after he leaves office, would it be too late for the next administration to restart this?

Probably moot as it applies to elections. Were Trump to win Oval Office he would have fulfilled he maximum 8 year time limit in office and no longer eligible to hold the office. 

As it applies to his federal criminal charges he can have his DoJ drop all charges and set about to bury evidence already collected or try to pardon himself. Pardoning himself brings up a whole new can of legal worms.

At lunch I read a couple of articles on today's appeals court trial on the DC immunity question. Seems the 3 judge panel is skeptical of Trump's lawyers arguments. It will be interesting to see the ruling when it comes out.

I don't know, is this covered under the statute of limitations? If Trump were to win the Oval Office and postpone this until after he leaves office, would it be too late for the next administration to restart this?

Probably moot as it applies to elections. Were Trump to win Oval Office he would have fulfilled he maximum 8 year time limit in office and no longer eligible to hold the office. 

As it applies to his federal criminal charges he can have his DoJ drop all charges and set about to bury evidence already collected or try to pardon himself. Pardoning himself brings up a whole new can of legal worms.

Yeah, that's why I asked if anybody knew if this was covered under the statute of limitations. The charges brought by Smith are not really applied to elections, they are criminal in nature. I suspect that should Trump win in November, he would instruct the DOJ to stop all proceedings and bury what can be buried. Problem with that idea is the next president can have it reopened unless the statute of limitations does apply.

Should he try to pardon himself, I think that opens the doors to a constitutional crisis. As far as I know, we've never had a president who did that so it's totally untested legal theory. 

As far as today's appeals court, yeah it seems like the 3 judge panel is rightfully skeptical of the arguments so the ruling will be interesting. I know Smith is pushing for a fast release, but it's a sure bet that Trump will appeal up to SCOTUS and who knows when they would be able to take that up. Add in, just how long does this drag on before the DOJ is seen as impacting a presidential election should Trump become the RNC nominee and this moves to July.  What a fucking mess this all is.

What a fucking mess this all is.

A mess for sure!

the innocent always want to delay justice for as long as possible... /s

CO/SOS jena griswold certified the primary ballot yesterday, 1/5, and trump's name will be on it due to printing and mailing deadlines. SCOTUS is making a decision on whether any votes trump gets in the CO primary will be counted.

I think there's actually very little about this case over which the Court would have subject matter jurisdiction. I don't think it's up to them to rule on the matter of insurrection, and I doubt very much they would even attempt it.

Although, incredibly, that isn't even really in dispute. The Trump team's main argument is that the president is not an "officer of the United States" as required by the 14th Amendment. I do think that makes this a federal question, but I'm still not sure the Court will settle that question, either.

I think the real issue is if the state has the constitutional authority to make these decisions. I think it does. Though the election is for a federal office, it's still a state-run election. The state can establish and interpret its own rules, except where they violate the federal constitution. The Constitution provides that Electors elect the president and that States choose the Electors. It does not limit how they do that.

Would the state's decision here violate the US Constitution? I doubt it. The 14th Amendment defines a reason that a person is disqualified to hold office. Nowhere - in either the 14th Amendment or the Constitution, as a whole - is there an individual right to be on a state ballot for the office.

14th Amendment defines a reason that a person is disqualified to hold office. Nowhere - in either the 14th Amendment or the Constitution, as a whole - is there an individual right to be on a state ballot for the office.

Seems to me that a court (any court) can make a ruling on eligibility based on 14^th§3.    Determining eligibility is of course different from determining criminality.   The court thus need not rule (seems to me) on a crime such as that described in 18 USC §2383.   They could determine that Trump's actions met the meaning of 14^th §3 and thus make him ineligible without ruling that he committed a crime.

The Trump team's main argument is that the president is not an "officer of the United States" as required by the 14^th Amendment. 

I think the idea that the PotUS is NOT an officer is absurd, and I hope the SCotUS does not make such a ruling (a horrible precedent).

I think the real issue is if the state has the constitutional authority to make these decisions. 

If they rule against that then they would seem to be at odds with their own argument regarding Roe v Wade.

I agree.  It is possible that the Supreme Court could rule that it is within the purview of each state to make their own determination.

That would be consistent.   It would avoid a shit-storm directed at the SCotUS.   But the election itself would be a royal mess with lawsuits in abundance.

But the election itself would be a royal mess with lawsuits in abundance.

Well, we should be used to that by now.

trump will be having a cash flow problem in the near future.

... a severe cash flow problem. that's when his kids will flip on him...

You have a decent point here.   I do not know if you were joking, but it would not surprise me if Trump's kids would throw Trump under the bus if doing so might save their inheritances.   They are, after all, genetically related to that malignant narcissist.

Both nurture and nature.

I'm being very serious. combine trump's values, past history with family members, and overall transactional relationship with humans in general. it's only a matter of time before he leans on his 2 oldest children or puts them in a position of risking their own fortunes. his oldest daughter may be more resistant because of her husband, but in trump's mind, 3 of his kids money belongs to him.

trump is losing financial and legal escape routes at almost the same rate.

the fines trump's looking at in the NY AG's fraud trial could potentially be a major reality check to the trump business presence in NY. there's a strong possibility that an actual market price may be set by sales of some trump properties that will differ greatly from their previously inflated values.

not surprise me if Trump's kids would throw Trump under the bus if doing so might save their inheritances.   They are, after all, genetically related to that malignant narcissi

couldn't happen to a more deserving POS

... at least 3 times.

or 6 times, counting melania...

case over which the Court would have subject matter jurisdiction.

So 50 state courts  have the authority to interpret the 14th Amendment but the Supreme Court lacks it? 

State courts have to interpret the federal constitution every day. The only issue here that I see as something the SCOTUS could address would be the question of what constitutes an officer - as I mentioned. Even so, a state should still have the authority to determine who is eligible to be on their own ballots.

At this point, though, I’m not sure the issue is ripe for the Court because Trump hasn’t been elected.

urts have to interpret the federal constitution every d

But we are talking about the Supreme Court and it having subject matter jurisdiction over the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.  What other Federal constitutional  matters can states courts determine that  the Supreme Court can't?

. The only issue here that I see as something the SCOTUS could address would be the question of what constitutes an officer - as I mentioned.

The Supreme can certainly determine that section 5 requires congressional action to bar an officer and what procedural requirements satisfy a finding under section 3.  It can rule on any aspect of any claim touching the 14th amendment. 

What other Federal constitutional  matters can states courts determine that  the Supreme Court can't?

That's the thing. Not every issue in this case is a federal constitutional matter. Elections are run according to state rules. We see this in the news all the time. For example, some states vote only on Election Day, while others vote for a month. Some require ballots be filled out in person, while others allow some kind of remote voting. Unless these regulations actually violate the federal constitution, the states can set whatever rules they choose. 

So, states enforce a wide variety of requirements for being on a ballot. You would have to point to some federal right or protection to be on a ballot to say that the state is violating the federal constitution.

"Navigating that path will be quite a challenge unless they simply punt and say that Trump is eligible because he has not been found guilty of the crime of insurrection, or a crime of rebellion, or a crime of giving aid and comfort to enemies."

We're a nation of laws. Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and due process. Otherwise, we are no better than our current adversaries such as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, among others.

Let the people decide. The legality of what the states are attempting to do has not been unexplored previously, so the Supreme Court's interpretation and reasoning will be very interesting.

First, Trump is not being found guilty or not-guilty of any crime.   This is a question of eligibility, not criminality.

Second, due process is, by definition, taking place.   Courts are ruling, appeals are heard, etc.   

Third, the people will decide on candidates who are legally eligible.   We cannot vote for a 25 year old to be PotUS, nor can we vote for non natural born citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger to be PotUS.

"This is a question of eligibility, not criminality."

Based on what? 

Based on the 14^th§3 itself.

Look, Greg, you can figure this out yourself.   Did the Colorado supreme court make a determination of criminal guilt and sentence Trump?

The answer is 'no'.   They made a ruling on eligibility.   The made no ruling on criminality.

due process is, by definition, taking place.

That is not what Chief Justice Salmon Chase ruled when it was attempted to remove a Judge under Section III for being a confederate:

 Chase concluded that the Due Process
Clause foreclosed the argument that Section Three
automatically disqualifies someone from offense
without a trial:

Now it is undoubted that those provisions of
the constitution which deny to the legislature
power to deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law, or to
pass a bill of attainder or an ex post facto, are
inconsistent in their spirit and general
purpose with a provision which, at once
without trial, deprives a whole class of

persons of offices held by them, for cause,
however grave.

Accordingly, Chief Justice Chase held that
the provisions of Section Three can only be enforced
by Congress. “To accomplish this ascertainment and
ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence,
decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less
formal, are indispensable; and these can only be
provided for by Congress.” Id. It was the very
language of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chief
Justice Chase continued, that put this proposition
beyond doubt: “Now, the necessity of this is
recognized by the amendment itself, in its fifth and
final section, which declares that ‘congress shall have
power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provision[s] of this article.’”

media.aclj

There is a long-standing legal inconsistency in this.

§ 3 states the criteria for eligibility and includes, critically, this:

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Stating that Congress can remove the disability with a 2/3 vote implies that if they fail to remove the disability, it stands.   Thus it reads as if it is self-executing but can be overridden.

§ 5 however states that Congress enforces the 14th amendment.   

The SCotUS would have to resolve the meaning of the vague language and provide a consistent interpretation.   The question of self-execution is a long standing legal question.   Chief Justice Salmon Chase's opinion might be considered, but it will be up to the SCotUS to decide (or leave it undecided).

Again, the key here is eligibility vs. criminality.   When speaking of bills of attainder, ex post facto, life, liberty, property, the context is typically to avoid legislation from removing individual rights in questions of criminality.

A trial (per Colorado, not Maine) to determine eligibility followed by the hearing of formal appeals being deemed a violation of due process makes little sense.   If a trial to determine eligibility is not due process, what is?

tating that Congress can remove the disability with a 2/3 vote implies that if they fail to remove the disability, it stands.   Thus it reads as if it is self-executing but can be overridden.

§ 5 however states that Congress enforces the 14th amendment.   

Right, and the way to harmonize the  language in Sections 3 and 5 is the way Justice Chase did.  He wrote that Congress, per clause 5 must create legislation to ban someone for violating section 3 and that Congress (meaning a future Congress) can subsequently  remove the ban (with a 2/3 vote) if it's opinion changes. 

That does not resolve the presence of "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." in §3.

If the Congress must vote to remove the disability then it is active by default.

This is a seeming contradiction (as I noted) and the only resolution must come from the SCotUS making a ruling. 

We're a nation of laws. Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and due process.

Trump had due process in Colorado. There was a 5 day proceeding, and his lawyers participated and made his case. 

here was a 5 day proceeding, and his lawyers participated and made his case. 

Lol.  You even admit that:  "state authorities that Trump engaged in insurrection is based on J6 committee findings."

That's insane, if you think partisan congressional hearings constitute legal due process. The J6 committee  was run by television producer for political impact. What happens when James Comer's committee issues a report and a state court can simply accepts it as the basis to throw Biden off the ballot and claims "due process is served." You would go ballistic if that happened. 

Congress, the political body that is, has zero power to hold criminal trials. That's why they have to refer any "findings" to actual criminal courts for due process. 

That's insane, if you think partisan congressional hearings constitute legal due process. The J6 committee  was run by television producer for political impact. What happens when James Comer's committee issues a report and a state court can simply accepts it as the basis to throw Biden off the ballot and claims "due process is served." You would go ballistic if that happened. 

I didnt say the committee was due process, I said the hearing in Colorado was. 

Its sad and pathetic that you equate the J6 hearings with the travesty Comer and Jordan are committing. 

I said the hearing in Colorado was. 

How could it be if they relied on a partisan committee findings without holding an actual trial?   You, yourself, claimed that the j6 committee was the basis of their ruling. Was Trump allowed to have his lawyers even participate? Could he call witnesses? 

equate the J6 hearings with the travesty Comer and Jordan are committing. 

At least Comer and Jordan are holding hearings, and not performances orchestrated by a Hollywood producers. 

Trump's "defense" regarding conclusions that he tried to steal the 2020 election is "dont believe your lyin eyes". 

Is that where you are hanging your hat ? 

not performances orchestrated by a Hollywood producers. 

Hollywood producers did not orchestrate the GOP committees, Trump did. 

We have a ton of people, here and elsewhere of course, who know nothing about the J6 committee findings. 

The judgement by state authorities that Trump engaged in insurrection is based on J6 committee findings, that shows you how strong those findings are. The ignorance about this is disturbing, but what else is new? Thats America in 2024. 

How this fricken clown is still hanging around just screams the circus never leaves town. How so many fell under a spell by one who can't, just amazes me, but, probably because i was never enticed by the act of joining a cult, and that is what i'd have to categorize the Trump supporters as BEING. How anyone could be so lost as to feel Trump is innocent of not igniting his rabid followers to riot on our Capital, is beyond logic and reasoning, thus why i'd have to label them as cult followers. So many refuse to accept the fact that they fckd up by electing and then forgiving this clown, for such a large array of deeds that would have brought ANY OTHER DOWN, in any other town, accept anytown USA, is astonishing. The amount of IGNORANCE RULING, has got our country's citizens all drooling, as far too damn many Trump be fooling. This is embarrassing for our entire country. So if you think its okay, own your Trump, and don't try and slither away, cause YOU are the reason, Democracy went way, so OWN IT AND HIM!

  This is so pathetic on so many fronts it just seems unreal. The amount of dirty deeds this dude done did is ridiculous, and this time around he'll bring US All way further down. He'll appoint the worst in every direction, and if having lost, blame the broken fixed election, for he has promised to be the dictator he has always wanted to be. He will take revenge upon his detractors and opponents, and that is a serious threat to our democracy.

  This fck up should be behind bars, and not drinking, cause just lowering them is all he can do.

We, as in USALL, are in serious trouble if the orange clown is again leading US all down, cause that's all he knows how to do

Soviet style politics don't go over well here in the US

Soviet style politics

do you wish to explain ?

do you think January 6th would have occurred without Trump ?

Nor do Hitler style

whatever that's supposed to mean??????

He gives a voice to their hatred and ignorance and stupidity - he is hatred and ignorance and stupidity.

Perhaps due to the profession I practised in Toronto I'm quite fascinated with what is happening in America concerning the SCOTUS.  Issues I'm looking forward to are whether Thomas will recuse himself from this case, and then how about the three justices appointed by the primary subject of this case - will THEY recuse themselves?  If none of them do, then will they apply the same decision they made in Roe v Wade and leave it up to the individual States to make their own determinations?  Or will they go all out to protect their hero?   Should be an interesting time.

ard to are whether Thomas will recuse himself from this case, and then how about the three justices appointed by the primary subject of this case - will THEY recuse themselves?

There's not a coherent reason, let alone precedent, suggesting that any of them should.

f none of them do, then will they apply the same decision they made in Roe v Wade and leave it up to the individual States to make their own determinations? 

I don't know how the legal system in Canada works, but the American system is a little more developed than that. The constitution does not address abortion. Look yourself. The 14th Amendment explicitly addresses  this matter.  Do you see the difference and understand why they aren't nearly the same thing? 

Yes, thank you, I do now see the difference between a constitutional and non-constitutional matter, but the Canadian Judicial system is a lot more developed than the American one when it comes to the matter of Judicial ETHICS.  

whether Thomas will recuse himself from this case

I wouldn't count on it. Generally, a judge recuses himself if he has a financial interest in the case, or if there is a strong possibility of bias. And yeah, if you're thinking that last bit is a pretty vague standard, I agree. Executives - presidents and governors - often find themselves or their interest adjudicated before judges they themselves appointed. If this were a reason to recuse, it would be happening all the time. Then, you'd have to ask, what about judges appointed by someone from the other party? Aren't they biased, too? Yeah, that one isn't going to happen.

will they apply the same decision they made in Roe v Wade and leave it up to the individual States to make their own determinations?

I think that's what they should do, but I have no idea if they actually will.

Does anyone really think that anyone should be taken off any ballot for anything other than actual legal reasons?  Leaving it up to someones or some groups opinion that someone should be disqualified will be about the only thing any court, including the supreme court will be able to do going forward.  Does it make any sense to open this can of worms?  Didn't the Dems learn anything from Harry Reid? 

"actual legal reasons"

colorado state law concerning who can be disqualified from the state ballot isn't good enough for trump defenders?

Maybe you should go ask one.

Does anyone really think that anyone should be taken off any ballot for anything other than actual legal reasons?

Trump is being removed for legal reasons - by the appropriate authority.

Leaving it up to someones or some groups opinion that someone should be disqualified will be about the only thing any court, including the supreme court will be able to do going forward. 

Trump’s ineligibility is based on the CotUS and legal courts making a legal ruling.

On what grounds do you object to using the law of the land and courts?

I think it's hilarious that trump and his supporters are leaning on his SCOTUS appointees over this case in the media.

Interestingly enough, this whole issue in Colorado was started and pushed by a group of Republican voters there, who didn't want Trump on the primary ballot.

In the meantime, the Colorado Supreme Court has considered the appeals to the SCOTUS by Trump and the Colorado GOP and Trump will now remain on the ballot in Colorado and the ballots will likely have his name on them regardless of the SCOTUS decision.  However, Colorado law apparently says they can still disqualify him and not count any votes he receives if the SCOTUS upholds the initial Colorado ruling or fails to review it after ballots are already distributed. 

Update at ABC HERE :

The former president is able to remain on the certification list, however, because Colorado’s high court placed a stay on its decision, pending an appeal filed by Jan. 4, which the Trump team did.

The Colorado GOP appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 27 and Trump’s attorneys appealed on Jan. 3, which effectively placed him back on the GOP candidate list.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, Trump would remain on the list.

Ballots cannot be changed once they are printed, Griswold said, but Colorado does have procedures in place for candidates on the ballot who then drop out or become disqualified.

The secretary has "broad rulemaking authority," according to Colorado code, so as to "avoid voter confusion."

Griswold said she would not count the votes cast for Trump if he is ruled off the ballot after ballots are sent out and votes are cast for him.

“Once the ballots are printed, it's done that the ballots are what they are,” Griswold said.

Democrats proving they are the real fascists yet again.

They have no standing in this case, they have no right to remove Trump from the ballot, and they sure as shit don't have a right to interfere in a federal election- which this is.

They have no standing in this case, they have no right to remove Trump from the ballot

The US Constitution states otherwise.

... not trump's version.

I hope the courtroom will have a supply of duct tape.