https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-disqualified-colorados-primary-123830524.html
WASHINGTON − "Colorado's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that former President Donald Trump may not appear on that state's presidential primary ballot next year, marking the first time a court has embraced a theory that the former president disqualified himself from a second term by attempting to overturn the 2020 election."
"President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president," the state court wrote in an unsigned opinion. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."
"The Colorado court, which voted 4-3, said it would stay its own ruling until early January, giving Trump time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump is almost certain to do so, which would put a historic question before the nation's highest court − and once again put the legal issues swirling around the former president in the hands of the justices."
"...President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president," the state court wrote in an unsigned opinion. "Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the election code for the secretary to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot."
"The Colorado court, which voted 4-3, said it would stay its own ruling until early January, giving Trump time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump is almost certain to do so, which would put a historic question before the nation's highest court − and once again put the legal issues swirling around the former president in the hands of the justices."
"But the Colorado Supreme Court reversed that holding."
"The Colorado court is the first state to explicitly rule against Trump on the issue. Courts in several other states − including Minnesota, Michigan and New Hampshire − have shot down similar legal claims in recent weeks."
"The Colorado lawsuit, filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is one of dozens pending across the nation."
"....Several Republicans moved quickly to condemn the ruling. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the decision "is nothing but a thinly veiled partisan attack" and that he trusts the U.S. Supreme Court to set it aside."
My take: Of course support, or not, is splitting along predictable party lines, with Democrats supporting the lawsuit and Republicans condemning it. But see above, "The Colorado lawsuit... is one of dozens pending across the nation."
It's a start (and only that), but it's a tiny break in the clouds in which I can see a patch of blue sky. I think it would be a monumental battle in the Supreme Court, but I don't think it's a done deal that they will shoot it down.
As Rep Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado put it, "...the Constitution "protects the right to vote and bars candidates who abuse the process or engage in insurrection. Donald Trump has done both."
Update: Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark had some things to say about the Colorado decision: The Colorado Decision: Heads Trump Wins. Tails America Loses. (thebulwark.com)
"I understand why people might view the decision and say, “Wait a minute, that doesn’t seem right.”
"But we do have a legal process and in this case, the legal process was followed assiduously. There were no shortcuts, no extraordinary maneuvers."
"So ask yourself this: All throughout December 2020, everyone insisted that, no matter how foolish or baseless President Trump’s claims might seem, he was entitled to pursue the legal process vigorously to its end.
Why is that not true in this case? Why is it that Trump is entitled to have his day in court, but the forces looking to apply different laws to a different end are not?"
"If a legal process you have agreed upon ahead of time produces a result you do not like—tough noogies. You can argue that the result was poorly decided, or unwise. You can make the case that it will create problems. But you can’t say, “How dare these judges make this decision. They have done something outrageous that shakes our democracy to its very foundation.”
"I am sorry, but if the legal process was good enough to decide Bush v. Gore and needed to allow Donald Trump to attempt to overturn the 2020 election via various legal maneuvers, then it’s fine for Colorado to work through proper channels, using existing law, to attempt to remove an insurrectionist from the ballot."
"And if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns this decision, then we’ll have to live by that, too."
"...Have you ever noticed how, whenever Trump does something terrible, there is always an argument that holding him accountable can only help him?"
"You can’t impeach him in 2020, because it’ll just make him stronger."
"You can’t impeach him in 2021, because you’ll turn him into a martyr."
"You can’t raid Mar-a-Lago to take back classified documents, because you’ll rile up his base."
"You can’t prosecute him for crimes X, Y, and Z, because it’ll make Republican voters love him more."
"...There is a strange, self-limiting, helplessness to that thinking: A wicked man does immoral and illegal things—and society’s reaction is to say that we must indulge his depredations, because if we tried to hold him accountable then he would become even worse.
Is there any other aspect of life in which Americans take that view?"
Times being what they are, it's important that, however this shakes out, the country perceives that judges are not tainted by partisan considerations. Trump's team already is dismissing the Colorado ruling as being a partisan exercise, with all justices in the majority having been nominated by Democrats. If the US Supreme Court is going to weigh in on this in a timely manner (and it's hard to see how it can decline to), it must seek a bipartisan majority in whatever it decides.
ReplyDeleteIn the wake of January 6, the nation's judiciary distinguished itself by resolutely standing up to Trump campaign court petitions to overturn election results, disqualify electors, and similar shenanigans. In my view as a US citizen, that constituted one of the shining moments for the judicial branch of government in our nation's history. I don't think there have been many moments when the judiciary served us so well.
Consequently, the judiciary has incurred the animus of Trump and his stooges and fellow travelers. In recent years, Democrats also have attacked the judiciary, especially the US Supreme Court, particularly on abortion and judicial confirmations. We must resist these attempts to wound the reputation and standing of the judicial branch of government.
If the SCOTUS upholds the Colorado court's decision, the only way it could happen is if it is bipartisan. Consider; the Republican appointed justices outnumber the Democrat appointed ones 6 to 3. It is extremely unlikely that 5 of the Republican justices would vote in favor of Colorado's decision. But two of them might. Pretty sure all 3 of the Democrat appointed ones would vote in favor. Which would pass it, and it would be bipartisan.
DeleteKatherine - I would say, let's hope all nine justices decide the case on its merits, rather than trying to target a particular outcome. Deciding cases on their merits doesn't guarantee a unanimous decision. But the perception (which, as I said in my prior comment, is fed by both parties) that judges are partisan is one that we need to resist. It's a cynical and, I think, lazy supposition that tends to unjustly discredit the judiciary. And I think the judiciary's performance (both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges) in the wake of the 2020 election is a powerful rejoinder to those who would dismiss all judges as motivated only by partisanship.
DeleteSure, I agree that they should all decide "on the merits" But if the past is prologue, "on the merits" means different things to all of them. For instance, I cannot in my wildest imagination think that Justices Thomas and Alito would vote to uphold the Colorado decision. I think all of the others would at least give it a fair hearing.
DeleteFWIW, there is no way this is not going to rile up Trump and "the Base". It's already started. I'm to the point where I think, bring it on.
I agree that this CO ruling probably will make it even less likely that Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley will be able to stop Trump in the Republican primaries. I am not sure whether it will mean anything in the general election. On the one hand, Trump already has lost Colorado twice, in 2016 and 2020, so it doesn't seem likely that it really matters whether or not he is on the ballot in Colorado. (Not to mention California - I read that CA's lieutenant governor has requested that Trump be dropped from that ballot.) But if Trump's base is sufficiently riled to get out and vote (perhaps by writing in his name for president), that turnout could affect down-ballot races.
DeleteWhat I object to is the notion that Trump can't be held accountable for his depredations because it is too dangerous. Letting him get away with everything is more dangerous.
DeleteAll the previous off ramps for getting him out of the election have been passed by. If this one is a no-go, there's only one left, the general election.
Any kind of freely elected form of government runs the risk that the majority will choose somebody who ends up wrecking it. We have a large portion of the electorate who fears that white Protestant Christian patriarchy is endangered; an executive with very wide emergency powers to circumvent Congress; a Congress fighting over with personal morality and school curriculum; and a partisan judiciary. And then along comes Trump. He's not the cause of the problems, just the spoiler to take advantage of them.
DeleteMichigan Appeals Court says Trump must be on the primary ballot, but looks like that will go to the Michigan Supreme Court.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/michigan-appeals-court-trump-must-be-presidential-primary-ballot
It's not clear to me what the legal criteria are that would specifically preclude Trump from holding or running for office. He has not, so far, been convicted of a crime against the nation.
It depends on how the Jan. 6 trial goes. That includes a charge of inciting an insurrection. But if Trump is convicted, there's your crime against the nation (and violation of article 3 of the 14th amendment). It probably wouldn't be in time to prevent him from running, but it might prevent him from holding office.
DeleteInteresting backgrounder in the Was Post about other cases in which the 14th Amendment was invoked. Here for those who have freebie reads coming: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/12/20/insurrection-14th-amendment-history-trump/
DeleteHave to take a look at it. I'm not sure how valid it is to stop a candidacy before the candidate is actually convicted. Our whole system is being shaken apart. In Berlin. Flying back tomorrow. Way past my 10 day limit. I wanna go home.
DeleteHave a safe journey home, Stanley. At first I misread your comment to read, "Our whole system is being shaken apart in Berlin" (I need my reading glasses!). I thought, what on earth is going on in Berlin!
DeleteTo Stanley's qualm, let me add this tongue-in-cheek-ish commentary from Millie Bowles at the Free Press. (I find her pleasantly satirical; YMMV):
Delete"The only way to protect democracy is to end democracy: The Colorado Supreme Court decided this week that Trump is disqualified from holding the presidency and so cannot appear on the Republican primary ballot in the state. Meanwhile, California’s lieutenant governor ordered the state Supreme Court to “explore every legal option” to remove Trump from the ballot. In doing so, she said that the rules for the presidency are simple: “The constitution is clear: You must be 40 years old and not an insurrectionist.” Yet even there she is wrong: you only have to be 35.
"Anyway, for a long time the standard liberal take has been that Democracy Is Under Threat from Republicans. And Trump certainly tried schemes in Georgia and whatnot, like, the man gave it a shot. But I would say that banning the opposition party’s leading candidate. . . is pretty much the biggest threat to democracy you can do. It’s a classic one, really. Timeless. Oldie but Goodie. The American left was so committed to protecting democracy that they had to ban voting.
"All I’ll say is that once you ban the opposition party’s top candidate, you can no longer, in fact, say you’re for democracy at all. You can say you like other things: power, control, the end of voting, choosing the president you want, rule by technocratic elites chosen by SAT score, all of which I personally agree with. But you can’t say you like democracy per se.
"So Colorado, listen, I dream every day of being a dictator. I would seize the local golf course and turn it into a park on day one; day two, expand Austin breakfast taco territory to the whole country; day three, invade Canada. Day four, we ban zoos. My fellow fascists, we’re on the same page. Let’s just drop the democracy stuff and call it what it is. "
Stanley,
DeleteWe are looking forward to a complete debriefing once you have recovered from the trip. Otherwise have a restful holiday weekend.
We are a Republic, a res publica, i.e. government of the people, by the people and for the people. We are not a Democracy, in the sense of majority rule.
ReplyDeleteOur founders were skeptical of the pure majority rule, and therefore put into place the balance of powers, two different houses of Congress, and the Electoral College precisely so a surge of popular sentiment such as we see in Trump supporters might overwhelm the protections of life, the pursuit of happiness and personal liberty.
If it were the case of majority rules, the person with the greatest number of votes, Trump would never have had a chance. It is only because of the two-party system, the empowerment by the Supreme Court of the rich to buy our electoral system, and the electoral college that Trump was able to be elected once and may still be elected a second time.
Article 3 of the Fourteenth amendment is in the great constitutional framework of preventing a majority (e.g. people in the Confederacy) from electing people who had fought to overthrow of the National Government. Whether it applies to Trump and January 6 is a legal question to be decided by courts and (also by legislatures who could write laws specifying more clearly to what situations this amendment applies.)
So it seems clear that people, both Democrats and Republicans, who view Trump as a threat to the Republic should attempt to use the Fourteenth Amendment to bar him. They should not be hobbled by the possibility that an Electoral College vote could be a majority in favor of Trump. It is very unlikely that he could get a majority of the popular vote.
We should not decide that we are a Republic when we like its results and should be a Democracy (direct popular rule) when its results might be more to our taste.
Good points, Jack.
DeleteStill in Berlin thanks to Expedia, United and Lufthansa doing a real cluster job on my ticketing home. Took me a long time to get a being who eats and craps and who finally got me ticketed. Even that was in chat mode. I had a good time here but given the way they've depersonalized transportation, I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. Got me looking for a "Ted Kaszynski was right" t-shirt.
ReplyDeleteStanley “ I wanna go home”
ReplyDeleteSo do I. More than 3 months with no end in sight. My most fervent hope is that I will be able to go home with my husband someday.
Never book through Expedia etc. use those to compare fares, hotel prices, etc but book directly with the carrier, hotel, etc
Please pray for us during this most difficult Christmas.
A college friend to whom I have been confiding, a very spiritual, good woman, sent me a link to a Dan Schitts on YouTube calked Holy Darkness. I sobbed when I heard it. I can’t listen to it again.
Christmas joy is elusive for me this year, but I hope that all of you will have a happy and blessed Christmas.
Anne, keeping you and your husband in prayer. I am familiar with that song. I have heard it used during Holy Week.
DeleteAnother one, sung in the Christmas season, is Night of Silence, by Daniel Kantor.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PMVgMmj2Sio
It acknowledges the sadness and darkness that is sometimes present in the season. In this video it's a counter harmony to Silent Night, which is how our group is singing it on Christmas day.(not that we're anywhere near as good or as numerous as the St. Olaf choir in the video!)
Praying that you will both be able to go home soon.
Some of the Polish kolędy have a melancholy tilt to them. I've never experienced Christmas as a 100% happy clappy thing. After all, Christ is born in an animal shelter due to a housing shortage during an overbearing foreign occupation. Almost immediately, the powers that be want to get him. The members of the Holy Family become undocumented aliens until the heat dies down.
DeleteWishing everyone as good a Christmas as they can manage.
ReplyDeleteStanley, I hope you get out of Berlin OK via plane. Watch out for Krampus!!
Anne, prayers up. I find those "dark night" services for people grieving at this time of year helpful. Methodists here usually do one.
We will be celebrating with hot tea and chicken soup thanks to the bug (not covid) Raber brought home from the ukulele sing along and germ swap at the local library's preschool story time. I told him those little monsters were Typhoid Marys ...
I watched some of the livestream of the funeral for the murdered priest on Monday. It looked like the cathedral was full, and that most of the priests of the archdiocese were attending. All three bishops of the Nebraska dioceses, and 91 year old retired archbishop Curtiss, were there. Archbishop Lucas was the celebrant. I think it hit him pretty hard. At the end, before he went down to incense the casket, his voice broke as he said "...it was a wound in the presbyterate" and he said he felt it in his bones. Kind of hard for them to get in the Christmas mood this year.
ReplyDelete