▲ 270 ▼ Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by agent_flounder@lemmy.world to c/colorado@lemmy.world 13 comments fedilink hide all child comments Interesting development here in Colorado regarding Trump and the 14th amendment.
[–] Maeve@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago (1 child) Still gotta see what SCOTUS does. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children) Not relevant here, because states decide how their ballots are run. It's similar to how some states can prevent felons from voting for life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago They already stayed their decision until Jan 4 to give the SCOTUS time to rule on this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, the 14th amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America isn't relevant here... Adding /s because some people don't understand context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If it's not relevant then why did they stay their decision until scotus can rule?(If Trump decides to take it to the Supreme Court) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Did you really not read the comment I was responding to, or should I have added /s to it because some people are incapable of understanding context? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago* A lot of felons* may not have the money machine to pay the lawyers to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. And there’s also the supremacy clause, so idk, which is why I’d like to hear from a con law pro, attorney or paralegal. That was an embarrassing autocorrect. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] derekabutton@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (3 children) Not relevant here, because states decide how their ballots are run. It's similar to how some states can prevent felons from voting for life. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago They already stayed their decision until Jan 4 to give the SCOTUS time to rule on this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, the 14th amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America isn't relevant here... Adding /s because some people don't understand context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If it's not relevant then why did they stay their decision until scotus can rule?(If Trump decides to take it to the Supreme Court) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Did you really not read the comment I was responding to, or should I have added /s to it because some people are incapable of understanding context? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago* A lot of felons* may not have the money machine to pay the lawyers to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. And there’s also the supremacy clause, so idk, which is why I’d like to hear from a con law pro, attorney or paralegal. That was an embarrassing autocorrect. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rusticus@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago They already stayed their decision until Jan 4 to give the SCOTUS time to rule on this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) Yeah, the 14th amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America isn't relevant here... Adding /s because some people don't understand context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If it's not relevant then why did they stay their decision until scotus can rule?(If Trump decides to take it to the Supreme Court) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Did you really not read the comment I was responding to, or should I have added /s to it because some people are incapable of understanding context? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) If it's not relevant then why did they stay their decision until scotus can rule?(If Trump decides to take it to the Supreme Court) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Did you really not read the comment I was responding to, or should I have added /s to it because some people are incapable of understanding context? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cowfodder@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago Did you really not read the comment I was responding to, or should I have added /s to it because some people are incapable of understanding context? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maeve@kbin.social 1 point 2 years ago* A lot of felons* may not have the money machine to pay the lawyers to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. And there’s also the supremacy clause, so idk, which is why I’d like to hear from a con law pro, attorney or paralegal. That was an embarrassing autocorrect. permalink fedilink source parent