I guess I am lucky that you didn't compare me to Hitler.
Breaking!!! - CO Supreme Court strikes Trump from ballot.
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
You just don't understand the law.
Civil cases are heard all the time without a jury. And those decisions are perfectly valid and procedurally correct and full due process. Are you telling me that no one in the USA is legally divorced because divorce court has no juries?
Facts are judicially found all the time in non jury cases and those findings are as correct and as legal as jury decisions. This appears to be something that you have difficulty grasping, probably because your legal education comes from reading DC Draino and other nonsense.
So if a motion is brought to strike Trump from the ballot for insurrection and it is found judicially as a fact that he is an insurrectionist, no one needs a jury trial. Trump isn't going to jail. He's just suffering a civil disqualification.
And spare me the "form of punishment" blablabla. A guy who's ordered to pay $5,000 per month alimony might feel that's a "form of punishment", but it's a civil ruling - just like being disqualified from the ballot in CO.
You know nothing about this Red Bag individual. Maybe Red Bag is worse than Hitler?
So much going on here. Does January 4 appeal still on or will it be connected to this decision? Does the Supreme court have to make a decision by January 4 for the Colorado decision?
Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.
The court did not explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.
The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.
Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals up to the high court, but the court’s move is a major victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.
An expedited review of the issue is already underway at the DC Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for January 9. The election subversion trial is currently set to begin in March.
“The real question is what happens then,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Assuming the Court of Appeals rejects Trump’s claim, will it keep the trial on hold pending further review from the Supreme Court, or will it allow the trial to go forward and force Trump to seek a stay from the Supreme Court? It’s still possible that the trial begins on March 4, but the Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to let the DC Circuit go first makes it at least somewhat – and perhaps significantly – less likely.”
In urging the court to not take the case, Trump’s attorneys argued the special counsel was trying to “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.”
“The fact that this case arises in the vortex of political dispute warrants caution, not haste,” Trump attorneys wrote in court papers.
After the Supreme Court’s rejection, Trump continued to insist he has immunity from federal prosecution, writing on social media Friday. “I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election. Looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals!” he wrote on social media Friday.
Trump’s team had asked the appeals court earlier this month to examine the immunity ruling issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his criminal case.
Chutkan had rejected arguments from Trump’s attorneys that the criminal indictment should be thrown out because he was working to “ensure election integrity” as part of his official capacity as president when he allegedly undermined the 2020 election results, and therefore is protected under presidential immunity. The judge has paused all procedural deadlines in the case while the appeal plays out.
But Smith’s team sought to bypass the appeals court’s review of the matter by having the justices step in now.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” Smith’s team wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court.
Smith pointed to a Watergate-era case in which the high court also leapfrogged over an appeals court to quickly hear a case in which the justices ultimately rejected then-President Richard Nixon’s claims of presidential privilege in a subpoena fight over Oval Office tapes.
“Here, the stakes are at least as high, if not higher: the resolution of the question presented is pivotal to whether the former President himself will stand trial – which is scheduled to begin less than three months in the future,” the special counsel wrote in court papers.
Prosecutors also asked the court to decide whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy. Defense lawyers have asserted that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during his impeachment trial that he cannot be criminally tried for the same alleged actions.
Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.
The court did not explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.
The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.
Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals up to the high court, but the court’s move is a major victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.
An expedited review of the issue is already underway at the DC Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for January 9. The election subversion trial is currently set to begin in March.
“The real question is what happens then,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “Assuming the Court of Appeals rejects Trump’s claim, will it keep the trial on hold pending further review from the Supreme Court, or will it allow the trial to go forward and force Trump to seek a stay from the Supreme Court? It’s still possible that the trial begins on March 4, but the Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to let the DC Circuit go first makes it at least somewhat – and perhaps significantly – less likely.”
In urging the court to not take the case, Trump’s attorneys argued the special counsel was trying to “rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.”
“The fact that this case arises in the vortex of political dispute warrants caution, not haste,” Trump attorneys wrote in court papers.
After the Supreme Court’s rejection, Trump continued to insist he has immunity from federal prosecution, writing on social media Friday. “I was President, it was my right and duty to investigate, and speak on, the rigged and stolen 2020 Presidential Election. Looking forward to the very important arguments on Presidential Immunity in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals!” he wrote on social media Friday.
Trump’s team had asked the appeals court earlier this month to examine the immunity ruling issued by District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his criminal case.
Chutkan had rejected arguments from Trump’s attorneys that the criminal indictment should be thrown out because he was working to “ensure election integrity” as part of his official capacity as president when he allegedly undermined the 2020 election results, and therefore is protected under presidential immunity. The judge has paused all procedural deadlines in the case while the appeal plays out.
But Smith’s team sought to bypass the appeals court’s review of the matter by having the justices step in now.
“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” Smith’s team wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court.
Smith pointed to a Watergate-era case in which the high court also leapfrogged over an appeals court to quickly hear a case in which the justices ultimately rejected then-President Richard Nixon’s claims of presidential privilege in a subpoena fight over Oval Office tapes.
“Here, the stakes are at least as high, if not higher: the resolution of the question presented is pivotal to whether the former President himself will stand trial – which is scheduled to begin less than three months in the future,” the special counsel wrote in court papers.
Prosecutors also asked the court to decide whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy. Defense lawyers have asserted that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during his impeachment trial that he cannot be criminally tried for the same alleged actions.
It's not as complicated as you want to spin it. Due Process requires a trial and decision. Don't get hung up on the jury concept. There were three dissenting judges out of seven making similar arguments.
As I said, I think some of the liberal Supremes will decide to throw this out. What then? Is it reasonable to question your legal education, your sanity? This is not the slam dunk legal decision you seem to be arguing.
Sure, but what they specifically cited him in was his decision that when it came to eligibility to be on the ballot, the individual states decided who was eligible.
The thing is, I don't expect SCOTUS to overturn the Colorado decision on the grounds the state can't determine eligibility in general or doesn't have control of its election.
(There is a really good argument to be eventually had as to whether or not States should have any say in Federal elections, but that's a whole other discussion.)
Colorado is applying a Federal requirement here, though, so it isn't a case of them wanting to go cowboy or opt out of a Federal requirement.
The argument that is likely (if we are lucky) is going to be about what that Federal requirement actually entails and how it needs to be applied and adjudicated.
Last edited:
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Insurrection in this case is really a Federal crime. Clearly if the Supreme Court let the Colorado ruling stand, then by inference Trump would be ineligible to run for President.
So perhaps we are saying the same thing from different angles, but I am saying this is a matter for Federal courts not individual State courts.
No.
The Lincoln campaign didn't print ballots where it knew it had no chance. (And there was probably nobody who stepped forward and said he would vote for Lincoln in the electoral college in those states, so people couldn't even write in a vote.)
We didn't have unified "here are all the official candidate" ballots until almost 1900. (Can't remember when exactly, but I think late 1880s/early 1890s.)
I read people in Western Virginia (now the State of West Virginia) voted for Lincoln. Was it a matter of Lincoln's campaign not making an effort in the South or was there intimidation to prevent the Lincoln campaign from fair access to voters?
What does this have to do with the right to trial by jury?
An argument can be made that even though that wasn't the case when the amendment was written, only a federal criminal conviction of insurrection can bar you from office under this provision.
That would be the court deliberately saying "this is confusing, we are now setting down a new standard for when this applies".
Which is certainly a thing they can do. (That's one of their roles, is to come up with a standard by which to judge things.)
Like I said above, the whole "OK, but what is considered "insurrection" here and how do we decide when it applies" getting an answer is the best thing that could come out of this, but I don't expect SCOTUS to actually decide that. They are more likely to overturn the Colorado State Supremes on something much more technical and avoid the question.
No it doesn't.
It requires following the proper laws and procedures.
That isn't always a trial.
I fully expect it to be set aside, not thrown out.
The end result will be Trump back on the primary ballot.
I do NOT expect SCOTUS to rule on how to use this clause of the 14th amendment properly or render it null and void.
That insurrection is a federal crime doesn't mean all things called an insurrection are the thing that crime is referring to.
Nor does something saying there is a civic penalty for an insurrection mean you must therefore be convicted of the federal crime, which carries a higher burden of proof because it would deprive you of life and liberty.
Now, the federal insurrection crime specifically lists not holding office as a consequence of being convicted of that crime, so I do expect some people to argue that the solution is conviction for this crime is the only way the 14th amendment applies. After all, that language predates the amendment.
But the amendment was used to bar someone from Congress who was convicted of the Espionage act in the past, so clearly past precedent is that this specific crime is not required.
I agree that "Insurrection here is the same as the crime listed in the federal statutes" has an appealing elegance, but I don't know if that is the way they would decide if forced to. (And I don't expect SCOTUS to decide, like I said.)
As for the inference that if he was ineligible in Colorado, he is ineligible anywhere, there is no reason to draw that inference.
The States have separate rules and procedures for elections and election qualifications.
They also don't have jurisdiction over each other (although you can argue full faith and credit, I suppose).
The whole "all the states run their elections their own way" is a core part of lots of people's view of how the USA works.
Remember, too, no state is under any obligation whatsoever to hold a Presidential election, Constitutionally.
They are free to assign their electors to the electoral college however they wish.
That doesn't affect how other states do it.
I think it was mostly not making an effort in a lost cause, but the violent threats were almost certainly part of it as well.
That there also just flat out weren't any electors I think is true in some states as well. (No one was going to stand up and make themselves a target.)
My understanding is that in the end, Lincoln figured he didn't need the electoral college votes from there and there was no point in wasting resources.
He had solid majorities in enough states to win without contesting those states, so he didn't.
Civil War always was a contradiction in terms. These days it's downright ugly...
