The Colorado lower court also found it was an insurrection, but that an insurrection didn't disqualify a person from running for President (because of some very specific wording in the constitution).
So both sides in the case appealed and now here we are.
Knowing it would be appealed, no matter the ruling, the lower court found it was an insurrection. The next court had to take that as a factual finding. They could not argue or retry that question. It is now a legal fact.
Brilliant move! That judge took one for the team, called a coward and a traitor. And you see what we have here today. (insert wasted.meme)
That's not how American courts work? The upper court can find issue with practically anything it likes.
That's not how American courts work?
Nope. The court of appeals can find fault with the methods, procedure, precedent etc but not the facts.
(Also, that's not how question marks work.)
But here's the thing: they could easily say the method that led to the finding is wrong. It's not a fact.
If it's decided by the lower court it is held as fact. It may not in your opinion be correct but it is verifiably a fact at this point.
Lower court: “We find that since the man was found dead from dehydration, he must have been killed by the accused’s witchcraft that sucked his fluids!”
Higher court: Looking at a body covered in bruises from a long fall “I’m sorry, what…?”
Not fact finding they can kick it back to lower courts and say try it again but if the lower court says no they're stuck with it.
What happened? Be my Google.
Trump cannot be on Colorado ballot, judged by Colorado Supreme Court.
Good! That criminal shouldn't be in charge of a Popsicle stand, let alone the most powerful country on earth.
...unless SCOTUS overturns it.
How can SCOTUS even have jurisdiction when the Constitution specifically gives the power to oversee elections to the States? This seems more like it should require Congress to change the Constitution if the federal government wants the power to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
States are allowed to make their own rules but they aren’t allowed to contradict the US Constitution. Since the US Constitution is subject to the political leanings of the current court, who tf knows what’s ever going to happen.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but they are following the Constitution in making this decision. The Constitution does not require a conviction.
I mean, three of the SCOTUS were appointed by the guy who tried to coup the U.S. government and a fourth is married to someone who also tried to coup the U.S. government. I don't think it's so much about whether the arguments why they "can't" overturn it are good arguments or not at this point. It's like telling a pidgeon to stop shitting on the chess board because shitting on the board is not a legal move in chess.
It has no constitutional implication aside from the state constitution. The supreme court can't touch that issue.
asdfasfasdf
Wouldn't scotus ruling one way or the other, due to this being 14A, also automatically apply to the other states?
Not automatically. States have the authority to run their own elections. But this would set precedent for others to follow.
What they said ^
I hope you’re right, but I genuinely do not think the Tribunal of Six will give a single fuck about the catastrophic impact reversing the CO SC’s decision will have.
Also, if the SC does overturn the CO SC’s decision, Democrats/blue states probably won’t do shit, because DNC leadership couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag.
When you raise $100 because you’ve got Aces full of Kings and the other guy pulls out a .45… you’re not playing poker, but you apparently haven’t realized that fact yet. And that’s how the DNC rolls: We’re going to milquetoast our way into the First American Reich out of sheer laziness, ineptitude, and statements of “akshually, that’s technically against the rules” while the GOP sprays gasoline everywhere and lights it on fire.
sadfasdfa
That’s great, but the DNC the only group that can do anything meaningful in the context of our national politics, and how that evolves in the long term.
I’m not being pessimistic because I’m just trying to be a dick. I’m being pessimistic because the DNC has let me and hundreds of millions of others down repeatedly and systematically with their limpdick bullshit even if you only consider the past 7-8 years. I’m still voting for them because they’re the only major party that’s, you know, not overtly fascist, but I’ve got no illusions about how (in)effective they’ll be.
asdfafa
In theory, sure, I agree. In practice: not so much.
sdfasf
I’m starting to think you don’t understand that the national level DNC implicitly, yet effectively, sets party policy when the Democratic leadership and senior elected politicians support (or don’t support) specific candidates.
The DNC has successfully spiked more than a few progressive campaigns in favor of centrist neoliberal candidates that are much more corporate friendly… and big-ticket democratic donors put their money towards those corporate candidates. Remember “it’s her turn”? I sure as fuck do. It was as stupid then as it is now.
asdfasdfa
Not sure why you got down voted.
Unfortunately, there's a few republicans in this thread.
They can't, that's not how the Supreme Court works.
The Colorado Supreme Court paused its own ruling pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which Trump said he will immediately seek.
Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, told NPR that as long as there's a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review in place by Jan. 5, there's a "99.9%" chance that Trump will remain on the Colorado primary ballot.
The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.
If a) Trump seeks review, b) SCOTUS agrees to take up the case, c) SCOTUS overturns Colorado's Supreme Court's ruling, and d) all that happens in time, then Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot.
That's a pause to see if the court will take it which they can't.
The U.S. Supreme Court "can't" take up the case in the same sense as Trump "can't" incite his base to storm the capital building. But that didn't stop him.
And as I've said elsewhere in this thread, we've got three Trump appointees on the SCOTUS plus a guy whose wife took part in the January 6 rally and endorsed the attack on the capitol.
I hope you're right (and I'm not saying there's a 0% chance it won't get overturned -- not that it's going to make a difference whether Trump wins the general election in 2024 either way) but I fear we're living in a world where "can't" doesn't necessarily mean "won't" and where the U.S. Supreme Court may be totally willing to flout the rules.
What does that mean? I assume he will be missing out on any potential votes from Colorado?
Yup, none of Colorado's 10 votes will be for Trump. Colorado has a winner-take-all method, so even if there are alternate candidates, the difference will probably fracture the republican vote and loose any chance of any votes.
Colorado Republican Primary ballot for sure. I haven't read the decision, but that was the immediate effect.
I don't think there's any way the SCOTUS will let this stand.
Laugh now. But when the hoveround army comes for you...
Depends...
..littering the ground. Ankle deep in places.
I mean...stairs.
But muh States' Rights!
“States rights”
You start out in 1954 by saying, “n*****, . n*****, n*****” By 1968 you can’t say “ n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “ n*****.”
Until a republican doesn't like that right, in which case TRAMPLE EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM WHERE'S DADDY FED 😭
I keep getting more and more glad that I moved here.
What are you gonna do? Insurrect the state next?