[Rugoz]

Confederates were pardoned by Lincoln and then Johnson. Accepting such pardons is considered, in the US, to be an admission of guilt for all legal purposes.

The dissenting minority doesn't say a criminal conviction is a necessity. It argues there's wasn't "enough procedure/time" to properly determine whether Trump engaged in insurrection, in particular in the absence of a criminal conviction.

That's a question. However, giving states the right to do this has been a cornerstone of GOP judicial policy since the VRA, as part of their efforts to gut it. Removing this right would be a big setback for the Federalist Society because it would declare outright that Congress can set rules on voting and candidacy in states for federal elections, and not states themselves.

The Colorado SC is interpreting the US constitution. Pretty sure the SCOTUS always has the last word on that.

[Rancid]

Removing a candidate from ballots is not a state's right.

A state claiming the right to do something (like remove someone from a ballot) is most certainly a state's rights issue.

THe problem is, the GOP are a bunch of principle-less hacks. They are not for state's rights. They are for tyranny in any form that they can implement it. Historically, they've angled for state level tyrannies (see Texas as an example). They mask this with "state's rights". It was a great way to fake that they were principled. THis issue, will expose that lie. However, I think the MAGA electorate it too stupid to see they are being played, and the rest of the conservatives that understand what is happening, are playing along to see if they can position themselves for power in the aftermath.

You appear too dense to understand this. You are a principle-less person as well, so this makes sense.

[Istanbuller]

A state claiming the right to do something (like remove someone from a ballot) is most certainly a state's rights issue.

THe problem is, the GOP are a bunch of principle-less hacks. They are not for state's rights. They are for tyranny in any form that they can implement it. Historically, they've angled for state level tyrannies (see Texas as an example). They mask this with "state's rights". It was a great way to fake that they were principled. THis issue, will expose that lie. However, I think the MAGA electorate it too stupid to see they are being played, and the rest of the conservatives that understand what is happening, are playing along to see if they can position themselves for power in the aftermath.

You appear too dense to understand this.

Yes but only if you don't call it democracy. Liberal democracy tends give everyone voice, not silencing them.

[Rugoz]

Removing a candidate from ballots is not a state's right. They refer protecting minorities from "tyranny of majority rule" when they say states' rights.

The US constitution guarantees the protection of minorities, hence officers who violated their oath to the constitution should not be in government, no matter what the tyrannical majority wants. It makes sense.

[wat0n]

The dissenting minority doesn't say a criminal conviction is a necessity. It argues there's wasn't "enough procedure/time" to properly determine whether Trump engaged in insurrection, in particular in the absence of a criminal conviction.

This will likely be taken up by the SCOTUS. Can a mere indictment for insurrection against the US disqualify a candidate?

This doesn't seem like an easy question, since that disqualification is a penalty.

[Istanbuller]

The US constitution guarantees the protection of minorities, hence officers who violated their oath to the constitution should not be in government, no matter what the tyrannical majority wants. It makes sense.

It should be up to elections to decide who should govern, not courts. Judicial system and courts should not be in a position to favor one candidate over another one.

[Rugoz]

It should be up to elections to decide who should govern, not courts. Judicial system and courts should not be in a position to favor one candidate over another one.

You were the one claiming to be in favor of minority rights. Courts protect the minority against the elected majority. You don't even get the most basic stuff, do you?

[Rancid]

This will likely be taken up by the SCOTUS. Can a mere indictment for insurrection against the US disqualify a candidate?

I think the answer should be yes. Public officers most of all, should be held to higher standards.

[Istanbuller]

You were the one claiming to be in favor of minority rights. Courts protect the minority against the elected majority. You don't even get the most basic stuff, do you?

Courts are there to distinguish between right and wrong. This is how it should work in a democratic environment. Removing the opposition candidate from running is certainly not democratic. Do not weaponize courts. Let folks decide.

[late]

Removing the opposition candidate from running is certainly not democratic.

The law against insurrection supports democratic institutions from those that would destroy them.

There would still be an election, but there wouldn't be a madman in it.

[wat0n]

I think the answer should be yes. Public officers most of all, should be held to higher standards.

I think they shouldn't be voted in, but this is a penalty for a crime and thus Trump is entitled to presumption of innocence.

I don't think there's an easy answer here.

[Rugoz]

Courts are there to distinguish between right and wrong. This is how it should work in a democratic environment. Removing the opposition candidate from running is certainly not democratic. Do not weaponize courts. Let folks decide.

Constitutional courts exist to decide what's constitutional and what not. They can overrule the legislative majority, hence they can protect the minority. Nobody said it was democratic. Be consistent for a change.

[Rancid]

I think they shouldn't be voted in, but this is a penalty for a crime and thus Trump is entitled to presumption of innocence.

One of the questions of the 14th amendment is if a criminal conviction is required. This is not expressly written.

Conservatives often like to take literal views on the constitution. By their own stated principles, we don't need Trump to be convicted of anything. Obviously, these spine-less pieces of shit would say otherwise because now it's inconvenient.

Kids in sports teams are held to higher standards apparently. They often get kicked out of teams for being in situations where criminal behavior has occurred, even if they themselves didn't commit a crime or were arrested. The argument being "You should be responsible enough to not have your name even associated with shit behaviors."

I think that should apply to Trump's bitch ass. Crime or not crime, just the fact that he got us to where we are, should be enough. That is the highest standard that should be applied to him and any public officer. What the fuck is it with all of this excusing of this asshole? It just continues and continues... it's time to end this nonsense.

FUck Trump, and i hope he dies. I hope all MAGA morons become homeless and get AIDs too.

[Rich]

Why are Liberals so stupid?

This ban takes Trump off the ballot for the Colorado Primary. My first thought was is their plan do they hope to take Trumps name off the ballot in November as well. I was perplexed I thought Liberals really can't be that dumb. But yes they are. They don't seem to realise that as long as Republicans have a name on the Colorado ballot they can vote for them and their delagates can just vote for Trump when the electoral college meets.

[wat0n]

:lol: Why are Liberals so stupid?

This ban takes Trump off the ballot for the Colorado Primary. My first thought was is their plan do they hope to take Trumps name off the ballot in November as well. I was perplexed I thought Liberals really can't be that dumb. But yes they are. They don't seem to realise that as long as Republicans have a name on the Colorado ballot they can vote for them and their delagates can just vote for Trump when the electoral college meets.

This is a good point, although IIRC some states ban their delegates to the Electoral College to vote for other candidates, going as far as to make it a criminal offence. I don't know if Colorado is one of those states.

[Rich]

This is a good point, although IIRC some states ban their delegates to the Electoral College to vote for other candidates, going as far as to make it a criminal offence. I don't know if Colorado is one of those states.

Isn't that ban on voting for another candidates on the first round of voting of the electoral collage. I would presume that they're allowed to transfer their votes after the first ballot, assuming no candidate has a majority of the delegates on the first ballot.

[Verv]

Honestly, I have no idea how people sincerely believe that former Pres. Trump is guilty of insurrection .

It was a rowdy protest. Cops got hit. Protesters got hit. One got shot. They went a little nuts.

Did some of the people deserve to be arrested? Absolutely.

Did the Proud Boys come up with an incredibly silly plan for occupying the Capitol? Yes, and it was actually markedly peaceful. It had several parts that were about organizing hypemen, and no talk of violence. You can read into it that they left that part unsaid..! but then why was it that there weren't dozens of Proud Boys apprehended with guns on their person, or some nearby cache of weapons?

None of this makes sense as an insurrection, which begins to validate all of the accusations that the J6 trials were a witch hunt full of trumped up charges against rowdy protesters.

... The fact that people now think it is a valid reason to remove Trump from all the ballots is still wild to me, lol.

Worst case scenario: Trump thought that a large, rambunctious protest would motivate & influence legislators and Pence to move towards having a recount or even a new election. Very questionable tactic, but not an insurrection.

[Verv]

The US constitution guarantees the protection of minorities, hence officers who violated their oath to the constitution should not be in government, no matter what the tyrannical majority wants. It makes sense.

So what did Trump do that is a violation of his oath of office?

In one sense, I can recollect nothing like that... In another sense, I could also sit here and blow smoke out of my ass about how Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc., all violated their oaths of office because of a ton of fuzzy reasoning that ties back to the Constitution in the same way that every discussion about immigration laws ties back to Hitler.

[Rich]

Yes this pure fascism on the part of the Liberals, protest has been turned into treason. The modern meaning of Liberal is someone who is profoundly illiberal. Liberal means someone who is opposed to democracy, free speech, free expression free inquiry, the right to control ones own body, the right to protest, equality and due process, but supports arbitrary seizures.

[Potemkin]

Yes this pure fascism on the part of the Liberals, protest has been turned into treason. The modern meaning of Liberal is someone who is profoundly illiberal. Liberal means someone who is opposed to democracy, free speech, free expression free inquiry, the right to control ones own body, the right to protest, equality and due process, but supports arbitrary seizures.

As Brecht once pointed out, if there is a contradiction between reality and a ruling elite’s ideology, it is reality which wins. After all, the ruling elite wants to remain the ruling elite. They therefore act in a way which is consistent with reality while also maintaining lip service to their ideology. Oscar Wilde once said that hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue. And, politically speaking, hypocrisy is the tribute which delusion pays to reality. This allows them to maintain their comforting delusions while simultaneously acting in accordance with reality, in order to maintain their status, wealth and power. This is why liberals are illiberal, why conservatives are radicals, and why progressives are reactionary.