588
'Oath-breaking insurrectionist' Trump is ineligible for office, Colorado voters tell the Supreme Court (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The justices hear arguments next month on whether Trump can be barred from office for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Colorado voters who say former President Donald Trump should be barred from holding federal office because of his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol urged the Supreme Court on Friday to kick him off their state's Republican primary ballot.

Trump "intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him," lawyers for the voters said in a new brief.

"By spearheading this attack, Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution," the lawyers wrote.

The case addresses whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars those who have "engaged in insurrection" from holding federal office, applies to Trump.

The court is hearing oral arguments on Feb. 8.

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 136 points 2 years ago (6 children)

That only two states disqualified him from being on the ballot is a disgrace. Don't these officials from the other states swear to uphold The Constitution?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 53 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Unfortunately, as we have already seen within the Republican party, threats work! If you are a secretary of state right now, you have two choices:

    A) upholding Article 14 sec 3 because Trump engaged in an insurrection and is disqualified from ever holding elected office. But by doing so you, your coworkers, and your friends and family will be having to endure constant protests, verbal abuse, and death threats for the foreseeable future
    or
    B) Not doing that, hoping that he loses again (as he should), and the crazy people mostly leave you alone.

    Which one would you pick? The real answer is probably not as easy as simply following the law.
    I know which one I hope I would choose, but I can't say for sure I would do it.

    edited: because I was not paying enough attention and wrote the wrong job title. (oops)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    It is that simple, because with b), they will never truly leave you alone. With a) there is at least a chance it will get better. The consequences with a) however also include punishing all those people that propped him up and helped, as there are other laws and articles that have been broken and not prosecuted

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago*

    How can you be this ignorant? Different states have different laws, you absolute buffoon. Note that the processes by which Colorado and Maine banned Trump from the ballot were wildly different - and neither one involved the state attorney general. Where the hell did you get the idea that some process involving attorneys general banning people from the ballot was legal in every state?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    While I agree with you in principle, in practice I feel everyone agreed it really only had to be one state. There was never a chance this didn’t go to the Supreme Court and rather then duplicating the effort everywhere, it will be decided there.

    Now if the Supreme Court decides this is in fact up to the states, I would then expect significantly more states to take the steps to remove him knowing their ruling will stand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Many states like Oregon are waiting for a decision to be made at the federal level for this case so that the country can try to interpret Amendment 14 Section 3 in a uniform way.

    On this map, Red is successful case against Trump, turquoise is case pending, light blue is case withdrawn by plaintiff, dark blue is appeal pending, green is case dismissed. 32 states had cases against Trump, all of them going to the Supreme Court for similar reasons would be a big waste of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    Yes, but while I don't think he belongs on a ballot, I can also see the hesitation in hasty action. Whatever precedent is set here will affect generations of political fuckery. It's important to get this right and leave nothing to chance that someone gives him an out. Unfortunately that means long legal investigations and legal proceedings.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    get ready for "just because it's an office doesn't mean the guy who holds it is an officer" or some other technicality that makes it legal for republicans to have a riot any time they don't like the results of an election.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] [B] 6 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    WASHINGTON — Colorado voters who say former President Donald Trump should be barred from holding federal office because of his role in the events leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol urged the Supreme Court on Friday to kick him off their state's Republican primary ballot.

    Trump "intentionally organized and incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol in a desperate attempt to prevent the counting of electoral votes cast against him," lawyers for the voters said in a new brief.

    The ruling is on hold while the Supreme Court hears the case, meaning Trump remains on the ballot ahead of the March 5 Republican primary.

    The case raises various undecided legal questions, including whether the constitutional language applies to those running for president and who gets to decide whether someone engaged in insurrection.

    “The court should put a swift and decisive end to these ballot-disqualification efforts, which threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

    The legal challenge was filed on behalf of six Colorado voters, four of whom are Republicans, by the left-leaning government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and two law firms.

    The original article contains 436 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •