Rep. Cammack to Newsmax: Colo. Ruling Is 'Judicial Activism'

[Hodad]

  

1 hour ago, suds said:

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?

You did make it clear, and I was criticizing his opinion. I think he's trying really hard to find any excuse to punt. Obviously this is a hornets nest of a case because it touches politics--Trump politics, specifically. Maybe he doesn't want to move houses or deal with death threats? Maybe it's because he's Republican and it's difficult these days to be a Republican and cross Trump? Maybe he's worried about being re-elected a year from now.?‍♂️

Whatever the cause, even if sincere and earnest, that kind of foot-dragging avoidance is a massive cop out. 

And the majority opinion called it out:  "In our view, declining to decide an issue simply because it requires us to address difficult and weighty questions of constitutional interpretation would create a slippery slope that could lead to a prohibited dereliction of our constitutional duty to adjudicate cases that are properly before us."

^^ In other words, we shouldn't start punting on issues just because they are difficult or important, otherwise what's the goddamn point of a Supreme Court? lol 

 

I don't have any real qualifications. One of my degrees is a pre-law degree, so I've read and studied many of the landmark SCOTUS cases, and that informs my thinking. My goodness, where would we be if the SCOTUS had simply punted whenever they had to define and rule on sometimes nebulous language from centuries past?

One last thing to add. It is actually quite common here for there to be overlap- and occasionally friction -between civil and criminal verdicts. They can and often do exist independent of one another. O.J. was acquitted in his murder trial, but found liable in his civil trial. Trump has been found liable for fraud in a civil trial now and no criminal trial has occurred. The fact that he hasn't been criminally tried for insurrection is similarly does not prevent such an assessment in a civil trial like this case. The lower court provided extensive fact finding and rationale in making the assessment, and even the dissenters on the CO Supreme Court aren't disputing Trump's involvement in the insurrection. If there is broad agreement that Trump has indeed fomented insurrection then all that is left is to figure out who makes the call on eligibility? And again, if not Supreme Courts, then who? There is no other option. That's what they are there for. 

Edited December 26, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, suds said:

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.

You said opinions are encouraged. The fact is, NOTHING is discouraged, which is not the same thing.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Yup, and it's the Colorado SC's opinion that drives their desperation to derail Trump's presidential campaign. Of course, the SC will have to step in because those diaper dopers are so much more interested in political activism than actual rule of law. 

You're mistaking your own activism being opposed by the CoSc, as activism, when it is ONLY clear adherence to what the 14th A says.

[Deluge]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You're mistaking your own activism being opposed by the CoSc, as activism, when it is ONLY clear adherence to what the 14th A says.

The only "clear adherence" your side engages in is manufactured bullshit. 

Those woketards in Colorado are just as delusional as you are. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, suds said:

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.

Robosmith isn't a big fan of the whole 'democracy' thing    He just thinks whomever he likes should win and people should stop complaining about it.

[Deluge]

On 12/22/2023 at 1:44 PM, robosmith said:

Thanks for your completely uninformed and unhinged post. You've clearly not been paying attention to anything but FOS LIES and you've posted ZERO evidence for your wild claims.

FWIW, Comey explained exactly why Hillary wasn't indicted and it wasn't "optics." Maybe google that and cure your ignorance. ?

 

OK, robohomo, talk about the evidence you think you have that proves he "hasn't been paying attention to anything but FOS LIES". 

Don't be a dumbf*ck - show the evidence now.

[suds]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

You did make it clear, and I was criticizing his opinion. I think he's trying really hard to find any excuse to punt. Obviously this is a hornets nest of a case because it touches politics--Trump politics, specifically. Maybe he doesn't want to move houses or deal with death threats? Maybe it's because he's Republican and it's difficult these days to be a Republican and cross Trump? Maybe he's worried about being re-elected a year from now.?‍♂️

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.

[suds]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

If there is broad agreement that Trump has indeed fomented insurrection then all that is left is to figure out who makes the call on eligibility? And again, if not Supreme Courts, then who? There is no other option. That's what they are there for. 

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.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Deluge said:

The only "clear adherence" your side engages in is manufactured bullshit. 

Those woketards in Colorado are just as delusional as you are. 

STILL no evidence for ^these ridiculous opinions of yours. How about you specify which parts of the 14th A language are not clear TO YOU and I'll explain it to you in terms simple enough for you to understand?

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Deluge said:

OK, robohomo, talk about the evidence you think you have that proves he "hasn't been paying attention to anything but FOS LIES". 

Don't be a dumbf*ck - show the evidence now.

I would never be LIKE YOU and FAIL to CITE EVIDENCE which you never do.

This is NOT "OPTICS," it is LACK OF PRECEDENCE:

FBI’s Comey says ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would bring a case against Clinton for emails

Quote

Comey said decisions on whether or not to bring charges are partly based on “how similar situations have been handled in the past.”

“In looking back into our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” Comey said. “All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Exclusive FOS LIES viewers never hear these FACTS.

[robosmith]

46 minutes ago, suds said:

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.

Here is a Colorado statute which seems to apply:

1-4-501. Only eligible electors eligible for office

 

Quote

 

OVERVIEW OF STATUTE

 

Only eligible electors who are at least eighteen years old are eligible to hold any office in Colorado. Candidates also must fully meet the qualifications of the office for which they are running as stated by the constitution and statutes of Colorado on or before the beginning of the term of office. Candidates must swear or affirm under oath that they meet the qualifications, and must provide proof they meet any registration, evidence, or property ownership requirements of the office. Additionally, no person can run for more than one office at a time, though this rule does not apply to memberships on different special district boards.

Any eligible elector has a right to challenge the qualifications of any candidate within five days of the certification of candidacy. In the event of a challenge, a hearing to determine the eligibility will be held between five and ten days after certification. A decision will be made within 48 hours of this hearing. The provisions of C.R.S. § 13-17-101 governing frivolous, groundless, or vexatious actions apply to such challenges.

 

 

[Hodad]

8 hours ago, suds said:

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.

1. Punt. There is no established process anywhere. Someone has to have the courage to do the work and address thorny constitutional questions.

2. He was originally appointed to the bench by a Republican and is a registered Republican. Whether or not that's a factor in his reluctance, I can't say.  ?‍♀️

3. You think it's worse to be "cancelled" (publicly criticized) than face threat of death? Okaaaay.

4. Disagree. It would be excellent if our legal system would hold Trump accountable for his actions in a way that Republican senators refused to do--a refusal they are certainly now regretting.

He did unimaginable harm to this country and was Mike Pence's moment of courage away from a successful coup. It is pure lunacy to give him another try.

[Hodad]

8 hours ago, suds said:

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.

Yes, they absolutely can. Impeachment is a political process, particularly right now. It can acquit, but not exonerate, btw. In the case of both impeachments, there is no question that Trump was guilty. His political party simply chose, for political reasons, not to hold him accountable.

Case in point, for the 2nd impeachment  McConnell and allies roundly and publicly condemned Trump for doing all of the things of which he was accused, but still voted against conviction on the thin premise that the process was negated when Trump was removed from office. The plain truth is that McConnell thought that after the coup attempt Trump was all done--no longer a threat to party or country, so he sought a politically expedient end to save further embarrassment to the party. He didn't want the next election cycle to be about how "the last Republican was convicted."  I guarantee you that if those establishment folks had any inkling that Trump wouldn't go away, they would have bitten the bullet and voted to convict.

To be fair, to Mitch and crew, it does seem preposterous to thinking Republicans that people would support the man after a coup attempt. They underestimated their success over two decades of grooming their base to tolerate anything that would spite the "liberals." 

And now here we are. The first President in the history of the country to subvert the peaceful transfer of power is the leading the race for the Republican nomination. The old guard did their work too well. Today's GOP doesn't believe in America. They don't believe in the constitution. They don't believe in elections and democracy. They believe in power at any price. They believe in vengeance and spite. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Hodad

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

In the case of both impeachments, there is no question that Trump was guilty. His political party simply chose, for political reasons, not to hold him accountable.

It would be just as fair to say he definitely wasn't guilty the other party just brought the charges for political reasons.

Man - the left REALLY hates the idea of a fair trial these days doesn't it?   If someone they hate gets charged with anything no matter how political the motivation then of course they're guilty, no need for a trial. If someone they like gets charged its all political  

[suds]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

There is no established process anywhere. Someone has to have the courage to do the work and address thorny constitutional questions.

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?

Edited December 27, 2023 by suds

[suds]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, they absolutely can. Impeachment is a political process, particularly right now. It can acquit, but not exonerate, btw. In the case of both impeachments, there is no question that Trump was guilty. His political party simply chose, for political reasons, not to hold him accountable.

Case in point, for the 2nd impeachment  McConnell and allies roundly and publicly condemned Trump for doing all of the things of which he was accused, but still voted against conviction on the thin premise that the process was negated when Trump was removed from office. The plain truth is that McConnell thought that after the coup attempt Trump was all done--no longer a threat to party or country, so he sought a politically expedient end to save further embarrassment to the party. He didn't want the next election cycle to be about how "the last Republican was convicted."  I guarantee you that if those establishment folks had any inkling that Trump wouldn't go away, they would have bitten the bullet and voted to convict.

To be fair, to Mitch and crew, it does seem preposterous to thinking Republicans that people would support the man after a coup attempt. They underestimated their success over two decades of grooming their base to tolerate anything that would spite the "liberals." 

And now here we are. The first President in the history of the country to subvert the peaceful transfer of power is the leading the race for the Republican nomination. The old guard did their work too well. Today's GOP doesn't believe in America. They don't believe in the constitution. They don't believe in elections and democracy. They believe in power at any price. They believe in vengeance and spite. 

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?

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, suds said:

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?

Well this is it in a nutshell. And of course today we have Michigan essentially agreeing with you, saying trump stays on the ballot, and the US supreme court can be the one who considers the issue. Which is the correct response.

This is so obviously a witch hunt that it's painful...  but the problem is that now that door is open, it trashes any respect for the law at all.  And republicans will use any means at THEIR disposal to cripple the dems and their voters and if the dems complain it'll simply be a case of "you started it" and nobody will care.

This was a very very stupid thing to do.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, suds said:

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?

Why? Primarily because the public citizens of Colorado have no power to bring federal criminal charges. They can, however bring a civil suit 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Why? Primarily because the public citizens of Colorado have no power to bring federal criminal charges. They can, however bring a civil suit 

So they tried to bring one involving a criminal matter with criminal consequences in a civil case. And doing so shows a stunning lack of respect for the law, and for democracy.

So - when trump gets in and decides to strike back along with the rest of the republicans and pull all kinds of legally questionable actions to keep democrat voters out and keep democrat politicians out, and basically follow the democrat footsteps to set democracy aside and weaponize the courts to hold power....   hope you remember it's literally what you wanted.

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, suds said:

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?

I don't know whether this false equivalency and both-sides-ism makes you feel better about conservative politics or something, but it's objectively false. Nixon was going to be convicted because what he did was very wrong and Republicans of that era prized integrity of oath and office over pure party loyalty.

Al Franken, a popular and influential Democrat, was dropped like a hot stone over what was ultimately a childish prank, but it was a prank in the sphere of an issue Democrats about which Democrats are passionate, so they put their money where their mouths are.

A majority of Democratic Senators are actively calling for Mendez to resign over strong allegations.

Today's GOP has an integrity problem. They should have been lined to to do the right thing and kick Trump to the curb for his egregious before, as they were prepared to do with Nixon. Many even publicly acknowledged Trump's misdeeds. But when it came time to cast a vote, they chose politics instead. "Winning hasf become more important than anything else, and they've learned that their voters jg offyust don't demand integrity any longer. Oaths of office are less important than any chance to "stick it to" the opposition. Why build something greatt when you can burn it all down instead?

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I don't know whether this false equivalency and both-sides-ism makes you feel better about conservative politics or something, but it's objectively false. Nixon was going to be convicted because what he did was very wrong and Republicans of that era prized integrity of oath and office over pure party loyalty.

Al Franken, a popular and influential Democrat, was dropped like a hot stone over what was ultimately a childish prank, but it was a prank in the sphere of an issue Democrats about which Democrats are passionate, so they put their money where their mouths are.

A majority of Democratic Senators are actively calling for Mendez to resign over strong allegations.

Today's GOP has an integrity problem. They should have been lined to to do the right thing and kick Trump to the curb for his egregious before, as they were prepared to do with Nixon. Many even publicly acknowledged Trump's misdeeds. But when it came time to cast a vote, they chose politics instead. "Winning hasf become more important than anything else, and they've learned that their voters jg offyust don't demand integrity any longer. Oaths of office are less important than any chance to "stick it to" the opposition. Why build something greatt when you can burn it all down instead?

It's common for the left to dismiss that which they do themselves do.   When it's pointed out they get sputtering mad.

For example - Clinton (first one) lied to the public and his party defended him no problem.  The democrats have frequently rallied to protect a corrupt collegue.

But - if you dare point that out then YOU'RE the terrible person   Especially if you have the gall to do so while they're busy accusing you of doing it!!!! (the nerve).

Honestly @suds, Hodad is a hypocrite and a coward. I don't know why you bother.  Either he'll just keep denying the truth or if you rub his nose in the truth and he can't avoid it he'll just put you on ignore. 

[Deluge]

On 12/26/2023 at 8:52 PM, robosmith said:

STILL no evidence for ^these ridiculous opinions of yours. How about you specify which parts of the 14th A language are not clear TO YOU and I'll explain it to you in terms simple enough for you to understand?

I've already explained how the 14th Amendment works. Now we wait for confirmation of my explanation through the SCOTUS  throwing your bullshit interpretation of the 14th Amendment back in your faces.  

[Deluge]

On 12/26/2023 at 9:06 PM, robosmith said:

Exclusive FOS LIES viewers never hear these FACTS.

Prove it.

Prove that true Americans who watch "FOS" news NEVER "hear" your warped idea of facts. 

[suds]

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

Why? Primarily because the public citizens of Colorado have no power to bring federal criminal charges. They can, however bring a civil suit 

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.

[suds]

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

I don't know whether this false equivalency and both-sides-ism makes you feel better about conservative politics or something, but it's objectively false. Nixon was going to be convicted because what he did was very wrong and Republicans of that era prized integrity of oath and office over pure party loyalty.

Al Franken, a popular and influential Democrat, was dropped like a hot stone over what was ultimately a childish prank, but it was a prank in the sphere of an issue Democrats about which Democrats are passionate, so they put their money where their mouths are.

A majority of Democratic Senators are actively calling for Mendez to resign over strong allegations.

Today's GOP has an integrity problem. They should have been lined to to do the right thing and kick Trump to the curb for his egregious before, as they were prepared to do with Nixon. Many even publicly acknowledged Trump's misdeeds. But when it came time to cast a vote, they chose politics instead. "Winning hasf become more important than anything else, and they've learned that their voters jg offyust don't demand integrity any longer. Oaths of office are less important than any chance to "stick it to" the opposition. Why build something greatt when you can burn it all down instead?

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.”