Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot

Unreal that only one state has bothered to do this. He's a Russian UI, bigot billionaires' puppet, a fucking insurrectionist and spews Nazi propaganda, but hey let's give him another chance to decimate democracy.

I agree with your description of him, but the only thing that's relevant here is the insurrection. It's important not to muddy the waters with the other stuff!
- The other stuff is just as relevant because he's dangerous on all fronts. While legally the insurrection gives grounds to disqualify him, everything else, in fact each thing by itself - the racism, ableism, sexism, carrying out the agenda of right wing nutjobs, Russia, should, in a civilized society, make him a political leper. Instead he's a viable candidate, after 4 torturous years of moron, an attempted insurrection, numerous trials, convicted of rape ... and here we are all again.

To the supreme court they go... I think we can predict the voting there down to the individual justice.

i can hear Harlan Crowe's checkbook creaking open from here

Reposting my comment from another thread. Remember to bee nice:

Personally, I don't think Trump should be on any ballot because he has a history of undermining democracy. It's self-defeating for a democracy to allow non-democratic actors to participate.

That said, I also agree with the dissenting opinion. Without a conviction of insurrection, a court shouldn't be able to limit democratic participation. That would be denying a person due process. I suspect the supreme court will see it that way too.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you'll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.

If you disagree with me, just imagine how this precedent could be used by the right against a left-leaning candidate. If democracy is limited without a conviction of insurrection, you’ll see this applied to candidates on very shaky grounds.
I disagree with the notion that, if we do it, it gives them permission to do it too. The GOP clown car will do anything, they do not need permission or any excuses or anything. For example, the Biden impeachment... zero evidence, no specific crime identified. Or say when you are being nominated to the SC you are asked if you will respect precedent i.e. Roe... and guess what, nope. Or creating a rule that no one can nominate a SC Justice too soon before an election. And they followed their own rule, um, nope. Or the respect they pay to the principle of a peaceful transfer of power.
- the Biden impeachment... zero evidence, no specific crime identified.
  Biden has not been impeached. There is an upcoming inquiry which is tasked with investigating Biden's potential business dealings with foreign nations. The purpose is to gather evidence and identify crime if appropriate. Hot take: if there is evidence of a crime, he should be impeached. I think the inquiry is largely political but if they do find evidence of a crime, it should be publicly known.
  Overall, I don't think we should be fighting fire with fire. Then we're just sinking to their level. If my political opponent is doing illegal things, let them stand trial. Trump has a ton of indictments meant to bring about justice. I just think the legal process is too slow for the left to feel satisfied right now. Give it time.
This choice about stripping him or due process or not was made before our time. The 14th amendment says “… engaged in insurrection.” It does not say found guilty of or after a trial. The bar isn’t has lofty as you’re making it seem and it’s been there since 1868, so I’m not sure why it’s suddenly concerning to you.
- How did Trump “engage in insurrection” though? He said some firey stuff to a rally, then didn’t stop it when it was happening, but that’s all I know about.
- I mentioned in another comment but I think conviction should be the bar. During reconstruction, we bypassed due process on this because it obviously applied to anybody holding office in one of the seceding states. Now that we're in territory the amendment wasn't directly written for, it's appropriate to review the interpretation.
  One of the arguments of the defense was that the specific wording of the amendment meant it didn't apply to the President. If we go with the specific wording of the amendment, we get pretty far from the intended effect of the amendment. The court agreed that the amendment applied to the president despite some discrepancies, but disagreed on whether due process would be violated by limiting the ballot.
So I haven't been following this lawsuit at all, so this is a genuine question. If the lawsuit is about barring trump from the ballot due to starting an insurrection, I would assume part of the trial was to argue for and against the claim that he started or otherwise participated in an insurrection, no? If that's not the case, then I'd agree with you. If that is the case, however, then I don't see how this trial wasn't the due process you're talking about
- Anderson v Griswold (this case) is a civil lawsuit that started Oct 30 in CO district court under judge Sarah B. Wallace. This case involved opposing arguments over whether or not Trump engaged 8n insurrection. There was no jury.
  Judge Wallace ruled (and CO supreme court later upheld) that Trump engaged in insurrection. The standard for burden of proof in this ruling was "clear and convincing," (see supreme court ruling) which is somewhere between "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard for criminal cases) and a "preponderance of the evidence" (>50% chance of the accused being responsible). Clear and convincing evidence is typically used in discrimination and fraud lawsuits.