kalm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:45 am
GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2023 8:28 am
The irony is that the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court flies in the face of actual due process. There was no due process here - folks used a rather limited Colorado electoral code law and stretched it to get their desired outcome. And even further ironic, they had a state use the 14th amendment to assume a power that had never been ceded by the federal government. Considering the 14th amendment has historically been seen as the amendment that further asserted federal power over the states, having a state turn that on its head is almost the definition of irony.
At this point, it's not a question of if the SCOTUS will overturn this, they most assuredly will. The question is whether they do it with a unanimous court or if there is any judge who'll dissent. Heck, the Colorado court was entirely democrats and they split 4-3 on this. Getting Trump off the ballot would be a fantastic outcome for America (heck, you could argue that once Trump is off the ballot, the Dems would enact plan B and replace Biden with an actual, lucid candidate), but we can't just wish him off the ballot with such a mediocre attempt at a judicial path to do so.
The 3 dissenting opinions were procedural regarding Colorado Law. SCOTUS won’t consider them. In essence it was a 7-0 decision.
Due process protects the rights of the accused as well as the state.
If Trump wants his insurrection innocence proven in a court of law he shouldn’t be continuously delaying all cases. The fact he’s arguing for immunity is hilarious.
The three dissenting opinions were not exclusively procedural and relative to the Colorado law in question. At least two of them (and maybe all three, I read them fairly quickly and I'm getting older so memory retention isn't great - and heck, I'm decades younger than Biden and Trump still!) talked about the primacy of the federal government as it relates to the 14th amendment and how Congress hasn't done anything to define insurrection other than what exists in that one spot in the federal code. It's pretty clear that Congress, through the 14th amendment, didn't want 50 states all defining insurrection however they choose. And in at least two of the dissenting opinions they made the case that the constitutional and federal law history has also defined "enemies" as something more formal, like a foreign power or like the Confederacy. The existence of a mob doesn't meet that definition either.
This one has been a reach all along. Again, just because we all want Trump to not be President doesn't then automatically make weak Constitutional law cases suddenly more substantial. The last thing we want, in our pursuit of trying to make sure Trump is never President again, is the diminishing and bastardizing of our legal and Constitutional system. We're all afraid of Trump and a second Presidency of his, but if we dismantle our republic in an attempt to stop him from being President and doing the same dismantling, have we really accomplished anything?
Oh, and seriously, now you're advocating that people need to prove their innocence in court or by default be considered guilty? Did you write that yourself or do you have a ghost writer filling in for you?
