suds

It's not really fair is it? But isn't it exactly the way 'cancel culture' works? One little slip and you're thrown in the dustbin of humanity. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Cancel culture is not that kind or forgiving.

Did they reverse their ruling or what actually happened? Can't find anything to back this up anywhere.

Can't argue with you really. Or maybe restrict their commentary to those whose chosen professions place them squarely in the public eye, and not the average hard working stiffs who we all depend on or our economy comes to a stop. It was a time I lost all faith in our media, something I didn't believe could happen here.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. When the truckers first rolled into Ottawa and the government (and a lot of the media )were trying to set the narrative about what slimeballs they were with all the nazis flags and trying to overthrow the Trudeau government..... maybe he wasn't aware of all the facts. Like there was only 1 nazi flag with Trudeau's photo underneath it, and the goal was to remove a minority government constitutionally. I wonder if he had any regrets? But that we'll never know.

I agree with the part that even if Trump had been found guilty of insurrection in a criminal case you'd still need to file a civil suit to remove him from the ballot. And if that was to be the case it would have been a slam dunk for the district court and likely no trial would have been necessary. Except that wasn't the case, it never happened. What the 3 dissenting Justices basically agree on is that when the case fell into the lap of the district court it should have been dismissed due the lack of any criminal conviction for a number of reasons. Due process was one of them. You can cry and stamp your feet and say there's just no other way the petitioners could have removed Trump from running for office, well tough titties. So here we are now, the District and Colorado Supreme Courts did what they thought was the right thing and now it's left up to the U.S. Supreme Court to have the final say. Or maybe it was the last hail mary to get rid of Trump. You're doing a lot of cherry picking there bud, and it's boring as hell.

It's not false equivalency, just me being able to see past the end of my nose. For you (and many others) I settled on 'true believers'. “The true believer has a tendency to see the world in black and white, with no room for nuance or complexity. This rigidity allows them to maintain unwavering faith in their cause.”

Then who in Colorado has the power to bring federal criminal charges? Why couldn't public citizens approach them concerning Trump and federal statute 18 USC-2383? What they (the public citizens or electors) did here was a sleazy back door way of doing things. Then the Colorado District and Colorado Supreme Courts make up their own definitions of what 'insurrection' means. Perhaps Section 3 was made vague for certain reasons? Saying that insurrection is the "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 actions necessary to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power" points its finger straight at Jan 6 and really no where else. Are they really allowed to do that then contend that Trump played a part in an insurrection "Ex Post Facto" style? As for the protesters there Jan 6... "the mob's unified purpose was to hinder or prevent congress from counting the electoral votes" Sorry boys, but you're insurrectionists also if it sticks.

Of course politicians of opposing parties stick together. And of course both parties love the parts of the Constitution they agree with and ignore the parts they don't. Did you actually have a straight face when you posted this nonsense?

Why not use 18 U.S. Code 2383 Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. Of course then he'd have to be tried in a criminal court which has more stringent due process than a civil court. Right? And why is it that none of those facing charges or who have been charged because of their actions on Jan. 6 have been charged with insurrection?

I have to assume that there's nothing in the Colorado Election Code about 'insurrection' or else those electors behind the petition wouldn't be forced to use Section 3. And since there's likely nothing in the Election Code all they're really doing is stirring up a pile of sh*t. Let's not forget that Trump was acquitted of inciting an insurrection during his second impeachment trial, and never been convicted anywhere else. You could argue that Article 1 of the constitution is not the same as Section 3, but both still involve insurrection. Can the U.S. Supreme Court find Trump guilty of insurrection on Section 3 after the senate impeachment trial exonerated him on Article 1? I'd like to know.

1) The Chief Judiciary of the Colorado Supreme Court was under the opinion that the section of Colorado's Election Code used by the electors to petition the District Court "was not enacted to decide whether or not a candidate took part in an insurrection". Sounds reasonable when you figure the Election Code also covers such things as the election of school board trustees. 2) Being chosen by a Democrat governor to serve on the state's Supreme Court is generally a good enough reason to believe he's a Democrat. 3) I'd be more afraid of the cancel culture woke left. 4) This is indeed becoming a hornet's nest that will not only affect those involved but the whole country in general. Nothing good will become of it.

Not exactly sure what you mean. Someone posts a news story or event and we comment on it by posting opinions or facts. It's important to differentiate between the two. Facts are usually a little harder to ascertain because one has to do a bit more background work and even then you never know for sure. I am a free speech advocate and do enjoy this board.

Well I don't know about you but I find bullshit a little hard to swallow.

Of course there are rules as to who can run for office. Can Putin run for U.S. President? Gee I don't think so. But the 14th Amendment Section 3 isn't quite so clear other than great minds like your own so it seems.

We won't actually know who 'won' until the U.S. Supreme Court takes it under review will we? Maybe they'll agree with the dissenters. And I sort of like to think that my opinion is worth something since this is a board that encourages 'opinions' and I do go to great lengths to separate opinion from fact.

Well evidently, you and the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court don't see eye to eye on a number of things. I personally am not a lawyer but I know how to read, and my post was a compilation of the Chief Justice's dissenting views (which I tried to make perfectly clear). So what exactly are your qualifications?

The U.S. has a long history of violent violent protest. The War of Independence began with an insurrection. And then the Civil War. Concerning Jan. 6th, the Colorado Supreme Court came up with its own definition of what constitutes an insurrection (see pages 100-101 of Court's ruling PDF text). Basically they're saying you don't require any bloodshed or organization, or even be such a substantial threat to guarantee success, as long as the threat was great enough to prevent or hinder the government to accomplish a peaceful transfer of power. And that pretty much much sums it up. So to repeat what I've said on another thread... by their own definition, Jan. 6th was an insurrection. Of course the Colorado Supreme Court also acknowledges that many parts of their ruling falls under 'uncharted waters'. I agree with Hodad about why not just wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on this, but in my opinion it's not going to pass muster.

I never stated that the dissenting Judges agree or disagreed. All I said was they had 'serious concerns' on how the courts handled the case presented to them. YOU'RE the one who said they ALL agreed which was false. Do yourself a favour and get the PDF text of the ruling and skim over it yourself. You don't have to read all 200+ pages either, just read the preamble at the beginning and then go to the conclusions at the end. And then make up your own mind. And I don't really give a flying fuk what Trump did, he's still entitled to the same protections and due process under the law as everyone else.

Schwarzenegger?? Of course, let's compare such Presidential qualifications such as age and place of birth etc. with the complexities of disqualifying a candidate based on "engaging in insurrection, requiring courts to define complex terms, and determining legislative intent from over 150 years ago" (Chief Justice Boatright). Which demonstrates why the Colorado Election Code was not the proper way of dealing with this, and that "dismissal is appropriate because a challenge was made without determination by a prosecution for an insurrection-related act". He goes on to say that "the complexities of the electors' claims cannot be squared with the district court to hold a (proper) hearing within 5 days and issue a decision within 48 hours of the hearing. This also comes with consequences such as the absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and public would expect for complex constitutional litigations." I would tend to think that possibly the courts did their best under the circumstances but 'due process' was lacking in many respects.

No, it is not all settled fact. The 3 dissenting Justices (including the Chief Justice) raised some serious concerns. From the text of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.... Conclusions on pages 145, 188, and 212, of PDF TEXT. Chief Justice Boatright (dissenting conclusions)... "of the opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of the case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection-related offense". "that the questions presented here reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute". "that the proceedings ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory time frame because the electors' claim overwhelmed the process". Justice Berkencotter (dissenting conclusions)... "agreed with the majority that if the Colorado General Assembly wants to grant state courts the authority to adjucate Section 3 challenges through the election code, it can do so. It just needs to say so. Justice Samour (dissenting conclusions)... "cannot in good conscience join my colleagues in the majority in ruling Section 3 is self-executing and that expedited procedures in our election code afforded President Trump adequate due process of law. Given the absence of federal legislation to enforce Section 3, and given that President Trump has not been charged pursuant to section 2384, the district court should have granted his Sept. 29 motion to dismiss. It erred in not doing so.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruling was 4 against 3. The 3 against votes were due to the 'vagueness' of the 14th amendment. After skimming through the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, it appears that most of the evidence used in both the Colorado District Court and Supreme Court was taken from the January 6th Congressional investigation. You know, the one where certain people (like Pelosi) were off limits for their part in the security operations, and the Democrats selecting the Republicans they wanted on the committee. The Colorado Supreme Court also came up with their own definition of what an 'insurrection' actually is .... 1) where force or threats do not require bloodshed 2) where they do not have to be highly organized 3) at inception may be a loosely organized affair 4) and where the threat hinders the counting of electoral ballots and certification of an election. I have to admit that does sound a lot like what actually happened on January 6th. However, when I look up the definition of 'insurrection' the most common answer I find is 'an act or instance of open revolt against civil authority or constituted government'. Of course that would include the torching of police stations and firebombing of federal justice buildings which was quite common during the summer of rioting prior to Jan 6th. It would also involve those Democrats like Pelosi and Kamala Harris who either openly supported or turned a blind eye to the violence. And we can't have that now can we?

The 5th Amendment contains the original 'due process' clause.... "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I find it ironic that in this case while the 14th Amendment contains the 'insurrection clause' (which you quoted), it also extends the original due process clause to State governments. Procedural due process applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. Even the Magna Carta of 1354 recognized the concept of due process of law. So I'm a little confused on how the Colorado Supreme Court can take away a person's freedom to run for office with no conviction or sentencing? The 14th Amendment was a 'reconstruction amendment' to transform the country from a slave state to one where freedom would be given to all constitutionally. It was a product of the American Civil War where over a million Americans died. In your opinion how does the Civil War compare to the events of January 6th? I don't see any comparison at all, and is probably why the term 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' was used in place of 'convicted of insurrection or rebellion' to perhaps make things simpler and not tie up the courts for years on end. This is a road the courts shouldn't be going down.

Yeah I get it. But is 'opinion' enough to prevent a former president from running for office again? Or should there at least be a proper trial, with jury, lawyers, witnesses, testimony, cross examination, etc., with a conviction? This sets a terrible precedent for any court or Justice to remove any political opposition they don't agree with. This sounds a lot like judicial overreach.

Some have posted that Trump has never been convicted of insurrection. If true, I find it fascinating that the Colorado Supreme Court can take away Trump's right to run for office based solely on what? Opinion? Or the fact that all 7 Colorado S.C. Justices were appointed by a democrat governor (3 of which voted against the decision). You might as well kiss rule of law goodbye if judgements are being made based on political affiliation.

If the Colorado Supreme Court was really that interested in democracy, they'd let the people decide. JMO