The ruling would be better if they disqualified him like they were supposed to.
Yeah on what planet could this possibly be the worst outcome?
The judge made up a completely bullshit reason to give him a pass.
deleted by creator
Nah that judge was scared of getting killed by the trump cult.
Both? Both. Both is good.
Without persecution and martyrdom, they’ll lose support. Trump has to be strong, but constantly under attack so that they can keep the mob foaming at the mouth and ready to attack anyone they want.
If you don’t punish people accoriding to the law because you “fear retaliation” means the law isn’t really worth the ink that it’s written with or the paper that it was written on. As well as showing there is no punishment for intimidating judges or for insurrection.
my dude you’ve rationalized yourself into believing anyone with insane rabid fans should get to break the rules. This is a bad precedent to establish.
Literally read the amendment… It’s far from established fact that the president is an “officer” of the United States.
“Commander in Chief” certainly sounds like an officer’s title.
The 14th amendment even says civil or military office. And the president is quite literally both the highest civil and the highest military office at the same time. There’s no one it should apply to more than someone running for president.
Why is it an “oath of office” then? The argument is absurd.
I have no idea what you’re saying because words have no meaning. I don’t even know what I’m writing. Probably just gibberish, but who can say, really? What even is meaning?
The second amendment doesn’t explicitly say AR15. CHECKMATE!
Get a dictionary
Gutless judge refused to follow the Consitution of the United States.
Read the Constitution yourself… It’s pretty clearly not a gutless decision. The writers of the 14th amendment let us down.
The Judge stated quite clearly Trump was involved in an insurrection and the 14th Amendment applies, but she would not enforce it.
Because he’s not running for president yet.
He’s running for the private nomination of a private party. If he wins, he will be running for president. But states will still need to wait until he files to be on the ballot, because that’s what needs to be blocked.
I don’t like it either, but it’s not actually crazy. Yet.
I actually buy that argument. That was a different judge in a different case in Minnesota that used that argument though. The judge in this case (Colorado) found he did engage in insurrection, and should be removed from the ballot, except bizarrely they decided the president was not a civil or military office so the 14th amendment didn’t apply. It’s mind boggling.
There is hope though. The finding of fact he engaged in insurrection isn’t easily appealable. So we just need an appeals judge to point out that president is obviously a civil or military office (both actually).
Thanks for the clarification. It’s hard to keep up with all of his cases.
Still kinda insane though considering how little time there is between the final primary and the national election, and how long it takes for lawsuits to process, and that the overall endgame is the presidency, not just being a GOP figurehead.
Agreed, but this is one of the problems with our election system - there’s a long, informal wind up, during which we let these private entities use the election systems owned by the states, and then a pretty short official period.
The state by state filing deadlines spread from now-ish all the way to march.
I’m exhausted by it already and it’s not even primary season yet.
edit: the truly crazy part is that supposedly this long process is to allow voters to thoroughly vet candidates, and somehow George Santos still got through.
“Yeah he’s an insurrectionist traitor, but maybe that’s what Colorado wants out of a president?”
Wouldn’t make a difference, because that part would still go to appeals.
The point of the article is that the one thing he can’t really appeal went against him.
Cheung added: "The American voter has a constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choosing,…
Lol, there’s clear exceptions to that. Every candidate has qualifying and disqualifying attributes. One of the latter is “engaged in insurrection.”
…with President Donald J. Trump leading by massive numbers…
Irrelevant.
…This right was correctly preserved in Colorado today and we urge the swift disposal of any and all remaining Democrat ballot challenges."
It was not, and fuck you.
This provides legal precedent to other ongoing cases against trump. It also allows the press to call him an insurrectionist without fear of legal repurcussions.
Wrong. The worst would be if the judge also upheld the damn removal from national ballot
“There’s a factual finding that the judge said, which is that Trump committed insurrection,” Katyal said of District Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s ruling. "On appeals, the factual findings get massive deference by the appeals court. It’s almost impossible to overturn a trial judge’s factual finding."
“If I were to put the headline on Friday, as an appeals lawyer, it would be this is the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court,” Katyal told Psaki. “Because it’s going to go on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, and there, Trump is going to face extreme headwinds.”
“Here, this judge factually made devastating findings against Trump,” he said.
So this judge boobytrapped the ruling and, almost by default, punted it upstairs where because of his words, it will be hell on Trump’s case. I’m all about it.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Despite keeping him on the presidential ballot, a Colorado judge’s ruling could still prove “devastating” for former President Donald Trump, a former solicitor general has said.
“If I were to put the headline on Friday, as an appeals lawyer, it would be this is the very worst decision Donald Trump could get from the trial court,” Katyal told Psaki.
Wallace found Trump engaged in insurrection during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol but allowed him to remain on Colorado’s primary ballot because it is unclear whether a Civil War-era constitutional amendment barring insurrectionists from public office applies to the presidency.
“The court’s decision affirms what our clients alleged in this lawsuit: that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection based on his role in January 6th,” Bookbinder said.
The lawsuit contended that Trump’s actions on the day of the Capitol attack violated the 14th Amendment, which prevents anyone from holding office who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution.
Cheung added: "The American voter has a constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choosing, with President Donald J. Trump leading by massive numbers.
The original article contains 610 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Cheung added: “The American voter has a constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choosing, with President Donald J. Trump leading by massive numbers. This right was correctly preserved in Colorado today and we urge the swift disposal of any and all remaining Democrat ballot challenges.”
Nothing is preventing anyone from writing him in if he’s removed from ballots. Slowly stepping to fascism. I’m gone if he wins.
