United States | News & Politics

7195 readers

969 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

291

Donald Trump banned from Colorado ballot in historic ruling by state’s Supreme Court (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Read the full decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

As I'm reading this further, I have to say, this ruling is full of so much spiciness that I'm surprised the media hasn't reported on it more. A few of my favorites so far (emphasis mine):

• If the Presidency is not an “office . . . under the United States,” then anyone impeached—including a President—could nonetheless go on to serve as President. This reading is nonsensical

• When interpreting the Constitution, we prefer a phrase’s normal and ordinary usage over “secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.”

• While nothing in Representative McKee’s speeches mentions why his express reference to the Presidency was removed [from the final draft of the 14th Amendment], his public pronouncements leave no doubt that his subsequent draft proposal still sought to ensure that rebels had absolutely no access to political power. Representative McKee explained that, under the proposed amendment, “the loyal alone shall rule the country” and that traitors would be “cut[] off . . . from all political power in the nation.”

• Representative McKee desired to exclude all oath-breaking insurrectionists from all federal offices, including the Presidency

They even went so far as to reference the fucking dictionary for those saying Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution.

• The language of the presidential oath—a commitment to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”—is consistent with the plain meaning of the word “support.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Modern dictionaries define “support” to include “defend” and vice versa. See, e.g., Support, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They do go on to quote the dictionary again (both from the 1800s and the current version) to define what an "insurrection" is, then say:

We have little difficulty concluding that substantial evidence in the record supported each of these elements and that, as the district court found, the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection.

Also, love how they basically reference what we all saw live here:

Moreover, contrary to President Trump’s assertion that no evidence in the record showed that the mob was armed with deadly weapons or that it attacked law enforcement officers in a manner consistent with a violent insurrection, the district court found—and millions of people saw on live television, recordings of which were introduced into evidence in this case—that the mob was armed with a wide array of weapons.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

God damn. Some more spice in a quote about whether or not Trump "engaged in" insurrection since he wasn't actually in the mob:

[I]t is not necessary to prove that the individual accused, was a direct, personal actor in the violence. If he was present, directing, aiding, abetting, counselling, or countenancing it, he is in law guilty of the forcible act. Nor is even his personal presence indispensable. Though he be absent at the time of its actual perpetration, yet if he directed the act, devised or knowingly furnished the means, for carrying it into effect, instigating others to perform it, he shares their guilt. In treason there are no accessories.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My tinfoil hat theory is that the district judge did not want to be responsible for keeping trump off the ballot, be it safety for her/her family, or that it is such a momentous event that she did not feel comfortable bearing that weight alone. So she came up with this "not specifically references" conclusion as a soft punt to the state supreme court.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Makes sense. Had it been just her that ruled against him, Trump would've cast her as an activist Biden puppet. But now that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against him instead, it's harder to paint that picture.

Still, I don't like the idea of judges being intimidated to rule in a way they know to be incorrect just so an appeals court can take the blame.