2044
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The Colorado Supreme Court is removing former President Donald Trump from the primary ballot, saying he is ineligible to be president.

In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”

“Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes.

“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary.”

Ratified after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says officials who take an oath to support the Constitution are banned from future office if they “engaged in insurrection.” But the wording is vague, it doesn’t explicitly mention the presidency, and has only been applied twice since 1919.

We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Chief Justice Brian Boatright, one of the three dissenters on the seven-member court, wrote that he believes Colorado election law “was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection,” and said he would have dismissed the challenge to Trump’s eligibility.

LINKS

AP: Colorado Supreme Court bans Trump from the state’s ballot under Constitution’s insurrection clause | @negativenull@startrek.website

Washington Post: Donald Trump is barred from Colorado’s 2024 primary ballot, the state Supreme Court rules | @silence7@slrpnk.net

CNBC: Colorado Supreme Court disqualifies Trump from 2024 ballot, pauses ruling to allow appeal | @return2ozma

NBC News: Colorado Supreme Court kicks Donald Trump off the state's 2024 ballot for violating the U.S. Constitution. | 18-24-61-B-17-17-4

CNN: Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot | A Phlaming Phoenix

CNN:Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from 2024 ballot based on 14th Amendment’s ‘insurrectionist ban’ | @Boddhisatva

New York Times: Trump Is Disqualified From the 2024 Ballot, Colorado Supreme Court Rules | @silence7@slrpnk.net

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 455 points 6 months ago

I can’t wait for the megathread when he fucking dies. Hopefully, after a few years in a supermax.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 103 points 6 months ago

He has access to rich people doctors, we're stuck with him for at least another decade.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 98 points 6 months ago

The comparably-built Jabba the Hutt was apparently nearly 600 years old in Return of the Jedi. He's sure to surpass Kissinger, at least, in this timeline.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago

I dunno, Elvis and Michael Jackson both had rich people doctors too...

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (50 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 280 points 6 months ago

God I love getting the chance to post this image...

[-] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 182 points 6 months ago
[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 115 points 6 months ago

dude was so fucking happy and you, within minutes, had to come along and outdo him.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Stamets@lemmy.world 83 points 6 months ago

Colorado Supreme Court be like:

[-] Thedogspaw@midwest.social 49 points 6 months ago

This is why I come to lemmy it doesn't matter what the topic is there's going to be star trek memes for days

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 264 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

In other news, Colorado confirmed most patriotic state in the union.

If a few more states follow suit, even if they are "safe blue" states, the GOP will have no choice but to drop Trump and pick up the next best candidate. Winning local elections is way more important for Republican-aligned agendas to continue forward, but if people won't turn out because Trump is off the ballot, it'll be a blue wave of lower offices flipping. They'll need to work fast to push the "Trump Bad, X Good" where X is whatever conservative sock puppet they prop up to take his place in hopes of saving their chances at maintaining a multi-state hegemony on state congressional seats.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 229 points 6 months ago
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 48 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Maybe. Stay vigilant. They took Trump off the primary ballot, who else is still on the primary (GOP) ballot in CO?

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 203 points 6 months ago

They're calling it an "unprecedented decision", but I like to think of it as a "precedent-setting decision".

[-] trafficnab@lemmy.ca 48 points 6 months ago

"Did the former president try to overthrow the government, and should he be allowed to be the president again?" is an unprecedented question, of course the answer will be unprecedented

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 198 points 6 months ago

Surely this will be challenged, and I'm not optimistic about the federal Supreme Court maintaining the same decision, but, fuck, would that be nice.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 151 points 6 months ago

SCOTUS could decline to take it up. Remember, they were not interested in entertaining Trump's election fraud claims.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 60 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They also have typically demurred to "states' rights." ~~It was a violation of Colorado's Constitution~~, so I agree that it's less than likely they'll rule in his favor on appeal.

Edit: it was ruled as violating the US Constitution. But I still stand by what I said.

[-] aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago

Weird assumption that the fedsoc SCOTUS will have any consistency in their rulings other than what's best for rich people

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 6 months ago

Some of the articles note that Trump wouldn't need Colorado to win (and didnt win in 2020) and while this sets a wonderful precedent, I'd wager that most would-be-Red-voting states simply wouldn't recognize this decision.

In that light, this seems a little bit of a hollow victory, but maybe I'm wrong and this is the precipice of something far better.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 52 points 6 months ago

I suggested elsewhere in the thread that it opens the door to other challenges in other states and that his primary opponents are probably looking into the idea since it's the only chance they have. Maybe it wouldn't work in the redder states, but in purple states?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 44 points 6 months ago

Current SCotUS is hella corrupt, but I don't see them denying that the individual States control their own elections.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 145 points 6 months ago

it would be “nonsensical to imagine the framers of the amendment, fearful of former Confederates returning to power, would bar them from low-level offices but not the highest one in the land” - commented the lawyer

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 73 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Clarence Thomas just clutched his pearls

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 60 points 6 months ago

Who bought him those pearls, Harlan Crow?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 138 points 6 months ago

Good job, Colorado.

Y'all should smoke a big fat bowl tonight to celebrate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Octavio@lemmy.world 135 points 6 months ago

The US Supreme Court will surely overturn this. Not because the Colorado Supreme Court was wrong, but because the US Supreme Court is crooked.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 122 points 6 months ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Comfortably_Wet@lemmy.world 111 points 6 months ago

Recently I watched "The Man in the High Castle" and had a good laugh at the stupid story. Like Germany would have ever been able to conquer the US and put it under Fascism rule. No. When America goes fascist it will do so out of its own choice, by its own politicians, elected by their own population. Like my grandpa once said:

*"The proletariat is so stupid that they vote their own executioner into power just for the vague hope of seeing their hated neighbour in front of them in the queue for the gallows."

"Das Proletariat ist so verblödet dass sie ihren eigenen Henker an die Macht wählen nur aus der vagen Hoffnung zu sehen wie ihr verhaßter Nachbar vor ihnen in der Schlange vorm Galgen steht."*

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 111 points 6 months ago

Please, remain alert. Even if he gets disqualified by the Supreme court next, he's likely to try Jan. 6 Part two: Orange Boogaloo. There's enough armed psychoes to vouch for him even if it's meaningless. I feel like every major institution needs to double their security in case something like that happens. Like any lifetime loser, this idiot just can't lose, especially having a slight chance to escape responsibility for his ongoing trials.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] KeenFlame@feddit.nu 110 points 6 months ago

How is it surprising or an open legal question when it has been thoroughly proved and stated in countless ways that he betrayed his position several times? Wtf? You have proof that he is dangerous and anti democratic? Wtf?

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 103 points 6 months ago

Fucking finally. That one Colorado judge didn't have the courage to do it (and I understand why), and I'm glad this panel did. I hope they got personal protection, because Trump is effectively a mob boss.

[-] athos77@kbin.social 43 points 6 months ago

The nice thing is that, now there's actually a precedent in place, maybe other states will follow on.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] GardeningSadhu@lemm.ee 85 points 6 months ago

way way way too long for this to happen and way way way too long to put him in jail. This system is fucked

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] doppelgangmember@lemmy.world 83 points 6 months ago
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 78 points 6 months ago

Why are people complaining that Colorado is blue so it doesn't matter that someone FINALLY upheld the Constitution?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 78 points 6 months ago

I appreciate that a state is working on this now even though he's not the nominee yet. It's an open legal question and it needs to be determined to truly give Republican voters the chance to decide who their nominee should be. If he's going to be disqualified it should be now.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 68 points 6 months ago

In a stunning and unprecedented decision

Unprecedented?? Have these people heard of the civil war?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] fulcrummed@lemmy.world 65 points 6 months ago

Anywhere in Colorado use paper and pencil anymore? I’m picturing election day when his supporters are so pissed he’s not on the ballot that they write his name in themselves and cast an invalid vote and burn remaining GOP candidates in a blue wave.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago

Colorado has universal vote by mail.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] m3t00@lemmy.world 60 points 6 months ago

about time someone said, fuck that guy. wtg CO

[-] Kellamity@sh.itjust.works 60 points 6 months ago

So this, if it stands, keeps him off the Prinary ballot.

Hypothetically does it also keep him off the ballot in the General? Or does that need a new ruling?

[-] MayvisDelacour@lemmynsfw.com 41 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It will be taken all the way to the US supreme court, so we should really be tempering expectations. From everything I've learned, hypothetically, he should be off every ballot if the 14th amendment is self executing. But there are tons of different takes by different people with various roles in the political realm. Seems like some don't think it applies to a president, that he didn't aid or abet insurrection, or that the rule is not self executing and everything in between.

So tldr: it was always going to be making its way to the US supreme court. This is just a first step and a welcome one in my opinion.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago

All the Trump cultists are calling this election interference, when he literally didn't have to do an insurrection.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 45 points 6 months ago

So does this mean Bobart might lose since the upballot is gone?

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 44 points 6 months ago

She barely won re-election and is hurting badly for 2024.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
2044 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18059 readers
2658 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS