suds

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

Or perhaps the provincial or federal governments which are leasing the land to the home buyers could give some of the proceeds they receive for the leased land to the municipalities. Believe me, I'm no expert on this. How China did things got me going and I'm just throwing stuff out there.

But what if government got into the land leasing business as China does (or used to do) for residential properties? So the builders build homes on land they know is leased for a 100 years (or whatever) to those who end up buying one of their homes and pay a monthly or yearly stipend to the government for the leased land. If buyers can't afford to buy a home at today's prices and mortgage rates, could they afford to buy the same home a few $100,000 cheaper and cut their mortgage payments by 30 or 40%? Of course if they wanted to sell they wouldn't get anywhere near the price of a similar home where the owner owned the property as well. I can see this affecting developers and speculators to a certain extent who own swaths of vacant land and could only sell to those buyers who wanted to outright own their own property. End result, greatly reduced home prices and mortgages, while the government gets another cash flow from those owning homes on government leased land. More choices and alternatives for those who want to get into the housing market are good in my opinion.

I'm sure you've all heard of China's 'ghost cities'. How is it that China 1) has 65 million empty modern homes (apartments actually), 2) is a country where 90% of households are home owners, 3) and 20% of these homeowners own more than one home?? All i know is that China leases out land to developers who do the building, while China creates the atmosphere that attracts business (and job opportunities) which attracts future buyers. So they build a vast number of these 'ghost cities' of maybe a million people each and figure it might take 10, 20, 30 years to fill. Now I realize this has created problems, but better to have too many homes than not enough homes, no? I just don't get it. In Canada we have no shortage of land and no shortage of building supplies. I mean nobody saw this coming?

Apparently the University of Pennsylvania lost over $100 million in funding shortly after Magill's comments.

At a U.S. House Congressional hearing Rep. Stephanic R-N.Y. asked a simple question ..... "Does calling specifically for the genocide of Jews violate (your university's) code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment?" According to Liz Magill of UPenn, you can call for genocide but it's not harassment unless genocide was actually put into practice. It appears to me it's a 'free speech' thing (aimed at Jews only) which overrides any codes of conduct regarding bullying and harassment. In Canada it's different. Section 318 of the Criminal Code plainly says that any person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offense. Which is the way it should be.

You might have a point there. We should never, ever, allow Trudeau to leave the country. We'd all be a lot better off.

There's one way to fix that..... the voting booth.

So the Judge determines that Burkowski did not do or say any of the things her accusers accused her of, and surmised that to (further) justify their incompetence to the public they attempted to 'assassinate her character'. Sound familiar?

My mother had this small crucifix that I never ever saw her wear. I found it in her jewelry box shortly before she died. I bought a small chain and put it around my neck and swore I'd never take it off. Well that lasted about 2 or 3 weeks. I still have it and can't part with it for some reason. Maybe we might all have at least one small religious bone somewhere in our body. I consider myself an agnostic. So... do I get any brownie points for that or what? Oh, and I don't reject social conservatism... it's just not my cup of tea.

Yes, the Court is bound by the Charter, but the Charter is only so many words. It's the Supreme Court Justices that interpret those words. Not an easy job I would think especially when rights conflict. Good post!

I can tell you this.... I'm no social conservative. Any moral judgements of mine on abortion (the killing of human life) has nothing to do with religion. I'm fine with euthanasia as long as the one being euthanized gets the final say. I've voted for Harper, and Harris. I've even voted for Trudeau once or twice (but not the one presently in office). Even voted for the NDP (but that was even further back when I was young and stupid). I hope this helps.

Many things can change over the course of 20 years. In this particular case, same sex marriages became legal in Canada in 2005. Trinity Western has changed by making the community covenant no longer mandatory in 2018. Time changes things, people change, and maybe even Judges. I did take a look at the court briefs for the 2 cases mentioned. I admit they are similar, but not exactly the same, which may have made a difference also.

The difference is that I see it as both a moral issue and a rights issue while you do not. The courts (being the way they are) see it mainly as a rights issue. So it is what it is.

I believe we're getting a little carried away with the Supreme Court. The opening post isn't really about the Supreme Court.

It's simple really. I see it as having more rights and since we supposedly live in a free country I don't consider it to be a bad thing. However, while not supporting abortion as a personal choice I would not force my beliefs on others.

Well that's just it. You can disagree/complain about the Supreme Court all you want, that is... until you need them. It's easy to judge others when not having to deal with all those nasty little unintended consequences that might spring up due to a poorly constructed decision.

I'm sure this isn't what you're referring to but Section 52 of the Charter does give our Courts the power to overrule any part of any law that they believe violates Charter rights. So they are empowered in certain cases to overrule laws made by elected officials.

I could agree with you on our un-elected Senate, but how many in our elected Parliament are lawyers or know anything about constitutional law for example? Are you suggesting that our Supreme Court Justices be elected, or that Parliament should have the ability to override them? I don't really care for either choice as it would just create more problems. We do have a notwithstanding clause. Someone or some judicial 'body' has to have the final say, and in general I believe our 9 Justices on the Supreme Court have served us well.

Fair enough. Anyways that's it for me, no way I'm in your league.

I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' because all the stuff I mentioned actually did happen. What I was trying to say was ..... you can't lay blame on the Israelis for everything. And I still maintain the same thing about the Palestinians. We both agree that they both have to forget the past and deal with the present. And I would think we both agree that Hamas doesn't fit in to any future negotiations outside of the release of hostages.