113
Donald Trump's Colorado ruling "worst decision" he could get: Attorney
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
113 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19118 readers
2461 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.