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

[suds]

13 hours ago, Hodad said:

Not sure what you mean. It's a civil case and had a standard civil trial. There were lawyers for both sides and evidence presented for both sides. There were witnesses and testimony for both sides. The lower court in Colorado found that Trump participated in an insurrection, and on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed. And both courts provided well and extensively reasoned justifications for that finding. 

And, realistically, no matter what kind of trial was held, the ultimate decision was going to end up in front of the same 7 justices to render an opinion.

The events of that day have already been legally established as an insurrection. There's no question that Trump was the cause and prompter of that sentiment, right up to the last moment. He even chose not to call them off--just watched it all unfold, probably with that stupid smirk on his face.

 

But here's the full text of the clause:

 “No person shall ... hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an officer of the United States ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Even if one can twist themselves into a pretzel to argue that Trump didn't really participate in the insurrection, it's entirely indisputable that he has offered aid and comfort to the perpetrators, right?

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Rebound said:

It is because the U.S. Constitution requires it. 

Wrong.

Trump has been verbally accused of something, nothing more.

If Trump can be disqualified because of a verbal accusation then anyone can be disqualified.

Biden can be disqualified right now. 

[Rebound]

53 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrong.

Trump has been verbally accused of something, nothing more.

If Trump can be disqualified because of a verbal accusation then anyone can be disqualified.

Biden can be disqualified right now. 

Wrong, there was a judicial finding of fact that Trump participated in an insurrection.  Not one judge has disputed that. 

[suds]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Wrong, there was a judicial finding of fact that Trump participated in an insurrection.  Not one judge has disputed that. 

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?

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, suds said:

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?

Stay on topic. The topic is whether or not Trump participated in an insurrection.  All 7 justices of the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the judge of the lower court that, yes, he engaged in an insurrection.  That much is settled legal fact and it is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will dispute that adjudicated finding of fact.  

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, suds said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's just silly. Not being qualified to run for office is not taking away someone's freedom. Some people are eligible and others don't meet the standards identified in the Constitution. Did we "take away" Arnold Schwarzenegger's freedom because he's not eligible to run for president?

And a civil trial IS due process for these questions. Due process was followed. The overwhelming majority of cases heard by the Supreme Court are civil case just like this one, having followed this exact process.

You don't seem to know much about our courts. You say the courts shouldn't be going down this road, but this is the road. That's the primary job. This is how constitutional questions are settled. 

Contrary to popular belief in some circles, Trump is not a special snowflake entitled to his own special legal privilege.

 

[suds]

17 hours ago, Rebound said:

Stay on topic. The topic is whether or not Trump participated in an insurrection.  All 7 justices of the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the judge of the lower court that, yes, he engaged in an insurrection.  That much is settled legal fact and it is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will dispute that adjudicated finding of fact.  

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.

[Rebound]

44 minutes ago, suds said:

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 three in dissent didn’t disagree that Trump engaged in insurrection. 
 

Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were not convicted of insurrection. You don’t have to be “convicted” of being under the age of 35.  
 

And it was Jackass Trump himself who sought to deprive Barack Obama of the Presidency by falsely claiming that Obama was not born in the U.S.  So Jackass Trump believes someone should be deprived of the right to the Presidency without a conviction.  

[suds]

17 hours ago, Hodad said:

That's just silly. Not being qualified to run for office is not taking away someone's freedom. Some people are eligible and others don't meet the standards identified in the Constitution. Did we "take away" Arnold Schwarzenegger's freedom because he's not eligible to run for president?

And a civil trial IS due process for these questions. Due process was followed. The overwhelming majority of cases heard by the Supreme Court are civil case just like this one, having followed this exact process.

You don't seem to know much about our courts. You say the courts shouldn't be going down this road, but this is the road. That's the primary job. This is how constitutional questions are settled. 

Contrary to popular belief in some circles, Trump is not a special snowflake entitled to his own special legal privilege.

 

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.

[suds]

15 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The three in dissent didn’t disagree that Trump engaged in insurrection. 
 

Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee were not convicted of insurrection. You don’t have to be “convicted” of being under the age of 35.  
 

And it was Jackass Trump himself who sought to deprive Barack Obama of the Presidency by falsely claiming that Obama was not born in the U.S.  So Jackass Trump believes someone should be deprived of the right to the Presidency without a conviction.  

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.

[CdnFox]

23 hours ago, Rebound said:

Stay on topic. The topic is whether or not Trump participated in an insurrection.  All 7 justices of the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the judge of the lower court that, yes, he engaged in an insurrection.  That much is settled legal fact and it is doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court will dispute that adjudicated finding of fact.  

That is not accurate. Nor are they qualified to make that determination nor was there a criminal trial and insurrection is in fact a criminal offence

Interestingly i've now heard it said that biden allowing in illegal immigrants should legally fall under the same category.  This doesn't end well, i don't know why dems dont' see that.

[Hodad]

22 hours ago, suds said:

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.

Yes, exactly. Let's compare a challenge to legal eligibility by birth citizenship, age, place of residence and challenge to legal eligibility based on this qualifying factor. 

They are all questions that 100% would be settled in civil court and then appealed through supreme courts as needed. 

And the argument above regarding the difficulty of defining terms and determining legislative intent from 150 years ago is completely asinine. That's literally the bread and butter of Supreme Court business. 

What does "arms" mean in "the right to bear arms"? What is infringement? What did the founding fathers mean by "all men are created equal"? What's a man? Does that include women? Did that include blacks? What does "equal" mean in terms of equal treatment under the law? When does life begin? When does citizenship begin? And on and on and on. 

Untangling complex questions and grievances is the job. Who else is going to do it? Left to a political body we'd get a new definition every time.?

Edited December 26, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, suds said:

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.

Dissenting opinions DO NOT CONTROL. They  LOST. Your ^OPINION does not count, either.

This is not a criminal conviction and the evidence required is NOT to "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a qualification determination.

In reality, the insurrection INTENT is thoroughly supported by the sworn evidence, whether you've heard it or not.

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, suds said:

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.

Not the "due process" of a criminal conviction. There is no "right" to run for any particular office; you have to QUALIFY, the  the 14th Amendment qualifications are CLEAR.

[suds]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

Yes, exactly. Let's compare a challenge to legal eligibility by birth citizenship, age, place of residence and challenge to legal eligibility based on this qualifying factor. 

They are all questions that 100% would be settled in civil court and then appealed through supreme courts as needed. 

And the argument above regarding the difficulty of defining terms and determining legislative intent from 150 years ago is completely asinine. That's literally the bread and butter of Supreme Court business. 

What does "arms" mean in "the right to bear arms"? What is infringement? What did the founding fathers mean by "all men are created equal"? What's a man? Does that include women? Did that include blacks? What does "equal" mean in terms of equal treatment under the law? When does life begin? When does citizenship begin? And on and on and on. 

Untangling complex questions and grievances is the job. Why else is going to do it? Left to a political body we'd get a new definition every time.?

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?

[suds]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

Dissenting opinions DO NOT CONTROL. They  LOST. Your ^OPINION does not count, either.

This is not a criminal conviction and the evidence required is NOT to "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a qualification determination.

In reality, the insurrection INTENT is thoroughly supported by the sworn evidence, whether you've heard it or not.

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.

[Deluge]

On 12/23/2023 at 2:20 PM, suds said:

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.

That's just it. Those drug addled psychopaths on the Colorado SC THINK they can take Trump off the ballot, but the SCOTUS will set them straight. 

Left-wingers are the biggest scumbag liars that the world has ever known, so you can't trust anything they say - ever. 

[Deluge]

On 12/24/2023 at 2:53 PM, Rebound said:

Wrong, there was a judicial finding of fact that Trump participated in an insurrection.  Not one judge has disputed that. 

Wrong.

Left-wing radicals made up their own facts, but the public is beginning to see through the bullshit. 

Trump has a lot of cleaning up to do when he retakes his rightful place in the Oval Office.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Deluge

[suds]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

Not the "due process" of a criminal conviction. There is no "right" to run for any particular office; you have to QUALIFY, the  the 14th Amendment qualifications are CLEAR.

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]

18 minutes ago, suds said:

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.

We know what the 14th Amendment says is disqualifying. And we know that some activist judges suddenly become non-activists when politics is involved; esp this SCOTUS which was extra willing to provide cert without process until now. IOW, unwilling to make the unpopular calls based on the obvious meaning of the words in the Constitution. 'Well it wasn't a "classic" insurrection" with Armies and whatnot.' ?

18 minutes ago, suds said:

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.

There is no "encouragement" of anything here. It is laissez faire where NOTHING is discouraged in any way.

[suds]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There is no "encouragement" of anything here. It is laissez faire where NOTHING is discouraged in any way.

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

[robosmith]

1 minute 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.

Judges are often unwilling to make the unpopular calls when it comes to politics no matter how clear the language is.

Just like the SCOTUS in Bush v Gore which overruled the FL state law which required a recount and said it wasn't even precedent. ?

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, suds said:

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

What does that have to do with your claim of "encouraged" which implies external (to you) influence? 

[suds]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What does that have to do with your claim of "encouraged" which implies external (to you) influence? 

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.

[Deluge]

On 12/23/2023 at 2:58 PM, Aristides said:

All judicial rulings are based on opinion. 

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.