After a very long drive and taking a break from the news I find this ruling encouraging as it prevents an insurrectionist from running for the most important office in our nation.
PS. Hunter Biden is not an insurrectionist. Perhaps before engaging in an insurrection people will want to remember they may not be allowed on the presidential ballot in some states.
Respectfully, this gives courts too much power over elections. A red state could say “Hunter Biden” and remove the Democrat from the ballot. This is a bad ruling.
The Republicans have already begun dismantling what little democracy this country had; the idea that anyone but the Republicans could shoulder any *affirmative* blame for this is ludicrous. The only non-Republican culpability falls on the people who *fail to stop them*.
Courts have already decided the candidates do not meet certain requirements for office. For instance, they fail a residency requirement. This proves too much. The best argument is that "insurrection" is too complex as compared to something like someone being too young. Not saying I agree but that's better than saying a court holding Melania Trump can't be POTUS as a naturalized citizen is granting them too much power.
The president isn't covered argument (which the district court bought) is silly.
To remind, the vice president of James Buchanan was a Confederate general and secretary of state. Could John Breckinridge be elected president in 1870 too without Congress removing the disqualification? I think not.
I think we should move past silly arguments here. The "got to be convicted" business also is fairly silly. The provision is not a criminal punishment. That isn't how it was originally applied.
Now, maybe Congress can/should pass legislation enforcing it that waives the disqualification unless someone is prosecuted. They did not. They basically left it open to the states to have broad discretion, for good or ill.
I welcome this ruling. The hardest question for me would be how to enforce the provision. But, that will factor in state law, which has already come up in multiple court opinions so far. For instance, what process is used or when you can challenge it (now or during the general election).
Reversal by SCOTUS...doubt if they will support the "self-executing" thesis, despite how well the arguments in law journals
endorse the proposition, and that alone will kill the CO court's finding. A bridge too far, especially for this court...and I doubt that they will even get into the weeds on "insurrection" arguments either.
Even if they remove the self-executing portion, that doesn't mean they will necessarily state he can be on the ballot, but they will definitely be making an opinion on how the 14th can and can't be applied.
I think the due process argument that J. Boatright and Samour write about would be the strongest for Trump's team. Trump hasn't been convicted (yet) and was acquitted by the Senate. Their argument, which I imagine SCOTUS will find the logic to support to rule in Trump's favor, could be that it is improper for the Colorado state court (or any state court) to decide whether or not he was involved in an insurrection while he has cases pending on the matter. What if he is found not guilty in those cases, but a state court found he is disqualified? It would create a very complicated problem, especially as one is civil and the other is criminal.
It seems certain that SCOTUS will take the case and 90% certain it will reverse. Will it do so per curiam or with full dress oral argument and opinion? The latter will serve to keep the issue on the front burner for some time.
My question here: does SCOTUS have the ability to reverse the two Colorado courts’ finding that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection? Or is it strictly limited to deciding the constitutional questions about whether the President is an “officer” for the purposes of 14A and whether the states have the ability to enforce 14A absent a federal law?
Either way, it seems like it will be very hard for Roberts and Gorsuch to straight-facedly overturn the Colorado court. Either they have to say that Trump didn’t do insurrection (lol sob) or that he *did* do insurrection but POTUS isn’t an “officer” (so obviously irrational) or they have to uphold the CO ruling. Right? Or so they play some shell game with standing and avoid it somehow?
Except he is not charged with insurrection in any indictment so he can neither be convicted of it nor found not guilty of it. That seems to leave the determination to the courts, and this court has ruled.
He's charged with interfering in the proceeding involved in the transfer of power, which as a constitutional matter very well might fall within the definition of insurrection. He also can be charged later for more crimes.
I'm going to agree with Bill below, SCOTUS probably isn't going to want to overturn the finding of fact of the lower courts nor wait for some future court outcome to drop like an asteroid on the elections.
I don't know (yet) enough about their ability to use one of the dissenting opinions, which hing on CO state law, to wriggle out of it, but I'm pretty sure they can if they want to.
That said, they are under a lot of pressure to decide if states can do this at all, and they've been very good at cherry picking whatever history or concocting whatever doctrine is needed to arrive at the end point they want, so who knows what they will do.
I would guess that SCOTUS will want to stay away from the "Was this an insurrection?" question if possible. I think they'll look at the states ability to enforce and try to find a way to hang their hat on that.
I keep thinking about this case, the upcoming Jan 6th obstruction case and the pending Trump immunity appeal. There is obvious reason for Thomas to recuse from all three of these cases. I assume there's no way he'll do this voluntarily. My question is whether parties appearing before SCOTUS for a case have the right to file a motion to recuse before the case is heard? There seems to be clear arguments to be made for him to recuse. I feel given the import of these cases and for credibility purposes it would make sense in one or all three to make a motion argument for his recusal just to document his unwillingness to do so.
I’m grateful that CO is on record calling the insurrectionist an insurrectionist. Whatever SCOTUS does to provide extra justice and special treatment for Trump, the CO statements are a permanent part of the historical record.
As for Thomas, he won’t recuse. Rick Wilson’s comment on Thomas’s availability to Trump is the most realistic take I’ve encountered: “I’m sure Clarence Thomas has sent you his Venmo link already.”
I'm baffled at why the Colorado Supreme Court touched upon the political question doctrine at all. Isn't PQ a justiciability issue, based on either prudential grounds or the separation of powers, that only bounds federal courts? Even though the underlying issue concerns the interpretation of federal law, I don't know why the Colorado Supreme Court thinks it's limited by the PQ doctrine, especially when state courts aren't bound by Article III standing requirements even when they consider federal questions.
After a very long drive and taking a break from the news I find this ruling encouraging as it prevents an insurrectionist from running for the most important office in our nation.
PS. Hunter Biden is not an insurrectionist. Perhaps before engaging in an insurrection people will want to remember they may not be allowed on the presidential ballot in some states.
Respectfully, this gives courts too much power over elections. A red state could say “Hunter Biden” and remove the Democrat from the ballot. This is a bad ruling.
The Republicans have already begun dismantling what little democracy this country had; the idea that anyone but the Republicans could shoulder any *affirmative* blame for this is ludicrous. The only non-Republican culpability falls on the people who *fail to stop them*.
Courts have already decided the candidates do not meet certain requirements for office. For instance, they fail a residency requirement. This proves too much. The best argument is that "insurrection" is too complex as compared to something like someone being too young. Not saying I agree but that's better than saying a court holding Melania Trump can't be POTUS as a naturalized citizen is granting them too much power.
If there is a conviction of Trump, his removal would be appropriate.
The president isn't covered argument (which the district court bought) is silly.
To remind, the vice president of James Buchanan was a Confederate general and secretary of state. Could John Breckinridge be elected president in 1870 too without Congress removing the disqualification? I think not.
I think we should move past silly arguments here. The "got to be convicted" business also is fairly silly. The provision is not a criminal punishment. That isn't how it was originally applied.
Now, maybe Congress can/should pass legislation enforcing it that waives the disqualification unless someone is prosecuted. They did not. They basically left it open to the states to have broad discretion, for good or ill.
I welcome this ruling. The hardest question for me would be how to enforce the provision. But, that will factor in state law, which has already come up in multiple court opinions so far. For instance, what process is used or when you can challenge it (now or during the general election).
Reversal by SCOTUS...doubt if they will support the "self-executing" thesis, despite how well the arguments in law journals
endorse the proposition, and that alone will kill the CO court's finding. A bridge too far, especially for this court...and I doubt that they will even get into the weeds on "insurrection" arguments either.
Even if they remove the self-executing portion, that doesn't mean they will necessarily state he can be on the ballot, but they will definitely be making an opinion on how the 14th can and can't be applied.
I think the due process argument that J. Boatright and Samour write about would be the strongest for Trump's team. Trump hasn't been convicted (yet) and was acquitted by the Senate. Their argument, which I imagine SCOTUS will find the logic to support to rule in Trump's favor, could be that it is improper for the Colorado state court (or any state court) to decide whether or not he was involved in an insurrection while he has cases pending on the matter. What if he is found not guilty in those cases, but a state court found he is disqualified? It would create a very complicated problem, especially as one is civil and the other is criminal.
It seems certain that SCOTUS will take the case and 90% certain it will reverse. Will it do so per curiam or with full dress oral argument and opinion? The latter will serve to keep the issue on the front burner for some time.
My question here: does SCOTUS have the ability to reverse the two Colorado courts’ finding that Trump did indeed engage in insurrection? Or is it strictly limited to deciding the constitutional questions about whether the President is an “officer” for the purposes of 14A and whether the states have the ability to enforce 14A absent a federal law?
Either way, it seems like it will be very hard for Roberts and Gorsuch to straight-facedly overturn the Colorado court. Either they have to say that Trump didn’t do insurrection (lol sob) or that he *did* do insurrection but POTUS isn’t an “officer” (so obviously irrational) or they have to uphold the CO ruling. Right? Or so they play some shell game with standing and avoid it somehow?
Except he is not charged with insurrection in any indictment so he can neither be convicted of it nor found not guilty of it. That seems to leave the determination to the courts, and this court has ruled.
He's charged with interfering in the proceeding involved in the transfer of power, which as a constitutional matter very well might fall within the definition of insurrection. He also can be charged later for more crimes.
I'm going to agree with Bill below, SCOTUS probably isn't going to want to overturn the finding of fact of the lower courts nor wait for some future court outcome to drop like an asteroid on the elections.
I don't know (yet) enough about their ability to use one of the dissenting opinions, which hing on CO state law, to wriggle out of it, but I'm pretty sure they can if they want to.
That said, they are under a lot of pressure to decide if states can do this at all, and they've been very good at cherry picking whatever history or concocting whatever doctrine is needed to arrive at the end point they want, so who knows what they will do.
I would guess that SCOTUS will want to stay away from the "Was this an insurrection?" question if possible. I think they'll look at the states ability to enforce and try to find a way to hang their hat on that.
I keep thinking about this case, the upcoming Jan 6th obstruction case and the pending Trump immunity appeal. There is obvious reason for Thomas to recuse from all three of these cases. I assume there's no way he'll do this voluntarily. My question is whether parties appearing before SCOTUS for a case have the right to file a motion to recuse before the case is heard? There seems to be clear arguments to be made for him to recuse. I feel given the import of these cases and for credibility purposes it would make sense in one or all three to make a motion argument for his recusal just to document his unwillingness to do so.
I’m grateful that CO is on record calling the insurrectionist an insurrectionist. Whatever SCOTUS does to provide extra justice and special treatment for Trump, the CO statements are a permanent part of the historical record.
As for Thomas, he won’t recuse. Rick Wilson’s comment on Thomas’s availability to Trump is the most realistic take I’ve encountered: “I’m sure Clarence Thomas has sent you his Venmo link already.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/therickwilson/p/a-video-message-on-colorado?r=1pfwwf&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I'm baffled at why the Colorado Supreme Court touched upon the political question doctrine at all. Isn't PQ a justiciability issue, based on either prudential grounds or the separation of powers, that only bounds federal courts? Even though the underlying issue concerns the interpretation of federal law, I don't know why the Colorado Supreme Court thinks it's limited by the PQ doctrine, especially when state courts aren't bound by Article III standing requirements even when they consider federal questions.
I am interested in whether you agree with the court here.