2024 Presidential Election Thread

[Pelado]

On appeal you can raise any issue that has not been waived. So, Trump can argue any point that he argued below, including whether or not his conduct constituted an insurrection.

I just got done reading the majority opinion and all three dissenting opinions. The majority opinion, of course, found that he engaged in insurrection. The dissenters responded, vigorously, to the suggestion that the procedures below were enough to allow Trump to be taken off the ballot. But not one dissenting opinion took issue with the finding that he engaged in insurrection. I found that very interesting.

I, too, have now read through the majority and dissenting opinions. I expect the Supreme Court will side with the dissenting opinions, that Colorado's Election Code is not the proper method for determining whether a candidate is disqualified because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Based on your comments above, I was expecting to see the dissenting opinions agree with the district court and majority that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Alas, none of the dissent opined on whether or not his actions constituted insurrection, since they each thought the case should have been dismissed prior to examining that claim.

[Non Sequitur]

I, too, have now read through the majority and dissenting opinions. I expect the Supreme Court will side with the dissenting opinions, that Colorado's Election Code is not the proper method for determining whether a candidate is disqualified because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Based on your comments above, I was expecting to see the dissenting opinions agree with the district court and majority that Trump had engaged in insurrection. Alas, none of the dissent opined on whether or not his actions constituted insurrection, since they each thought the case should have been dismissed prior to examining that claim.

if not the election board, then what would be the proper method for determining whether a candidate is disqualified?

[Pelado]

if not the election board, then what would be the proper method for determining whether a candidate is disqualified?

In general (though each dissent is distinct), the dissenting opinions seemed to think that Congress should give better guidance on that, as specified in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

At least one of the dissenting opinions pointed out that there is a federal criminal law on the books for insurrection - 18 USC 2383 - which includes as one of its penalties the incapacity of the convicted to hold public office. The judge pointed out that Trump has not yet been convicted - or even charged - under this statute.

Because of the time-sensitive nature of elections, the Colorado Election Code gives accelerated treatment for challenges to candidates on the ballot. As such, petitions are to be filed within 5 days of the candidate filing deadline, a hearing is to be held within 5 days of the petition being filed, and a ruling is to be issued within 48 hours of the hearing's conclusion. I think there may also be a 5-day limit to the length of the hearing. The Colorado District Court failed to comply with most, if not all, of those deadlines.

The dissenting opinions felt that the accelerated schedule did not allow for proper due process for the candidate. They were more concerned about depriving a candidate of the right to hold office without due process than they were about the right of citizens to disqualify a candidate from being on a ballot.

If someone were to raise a judicial challenge to bar Trump from the ballot without further action from Congress, I think the dissenting judges would point to federal district court as a better venue to deal with the Constitutional issues at stake.

Edit: In re-reading your question, I see that I didn't address the election board. No board was involved. The Colorado statute says that an election challenge is to be filed in Colorado District Court. So it was the District Court's decision that the Colorado Supreme Court was hearing on appeal.

They think the statute is intended for more clear-cut issues that can easily be handled on the expedited schedule. For example:

• Is the candidate for president at least 35 years old?
• Does the candidate for Senate reside in the state?
• Are the signatures on a petition valid and from actual residents?

They don't think the Colorado General Assembly intended for the statute to pass judgment on whether a candidate was disqualified from office because of previous insurrection.

[All-American]

In general (though each dissent is distinct), the dissenting opinions seemed to think that Congress should give better guidance on that, as specified in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

At least one of the dissenting opinions pointed out that there is a federal criminal law on the books for insurrection - 18 USC 2383 - which includes as one of its penalties the incapacity of the convicted to hold public office. The judge pointed out that Trump has not yet been convicted - or even charged - under this statute.

Because of the time-sensitive nature of elections, the Colorado Election Code gives accelerated treatment for challenges to candidates on the ballot. As such, petitions are to be filed within 5 days of the candidate filing deadline, a hearing is to be held within 5 days of the petition being filed, and a ruling is to be issued within 48 hours of the hearing's conclusion. I think there may also be a 5-day limit to the length of the hearing. The Colorado District Court failed to comply with most, if not all, of those deadlines.

The dissenting opinions felt that the accelerated schedule did not allow for proper due process for the candidate. They were more concerned about depriving a candidate of the right to hold office without due process than they were about the right of citizens to disqualify a candidate from being on a ballot.

If someone were to raise a judicial challenge to bar Trump from the ballot without further action from Congress, I think the dissenting judges would point to federal district court as a better venue to deal with the Constitutional issues at stake.

Edit: In re-reading your question, I see that I didn't address the election board. No board was involved. The Colorado statute says that an election challenge is to be filed in Colorado District Court. So it was the District Court's decision that the Colorado Supreme Court was hearing on appeal.

They think the statute is intended for more clear-cut issues that can easily be handled on the expedited schedule. For example:

• Is the candidate for president at least 35 years old?
• Does the candidate for Senate reside in the state?
• Are the signatures on a petition valid and from actual residents?

They don't think the Colorado General Assembly intended for the statute to pass judgment on whether a candidate was disqualified from office because of previous insurrection.

Right. The issue that will go to SCOTUS will likely be framed as 1), can any state-instituted procedure (versus a congressional one) disqualify a candidate for federal office, and 2), assuming the answer to the first question is “yes,” can THIS state-instituted procedure do it?

They may raise other points too, like whether what he did constituted insurrection, but I expect fewer than nine will want to take that on.

[Bo Diddley]

They may raise other points too, like whether what he did constituted insurrection, but I expect fewer than nine will want to take that on.

Right. In my lay opinion, this seems unlikely as the issue hasn't been prosecuted.

[Pelado]

Right. The issue that will go to SCOTUS will likely be framed as 1), can any state-instituted procedure (versus a congressional one) disqualify a candidate for federal office, and 2), assuming the answer to the first question is “yes,” can THIS state-instituted procedure do it?

They may raise other points too, like whether what he did constituted insurrection, but I expect fewer than nine will want to take that on.

Similar to the dissenting opinions, I don't expect the Supreme Court to reach the question of insurrection, at least not in the majority opinion.

[All-American]

Similar to the dissenting opinions, I don't expect the Supreme Court to reach the question of insurrection, at least not in the majority opinion.

Even money on whether Thomas addresses it in (what I expect would be) a concurring opinion.

[Commando]

I wonder if the Supreme Court will even get to questions of law. What if they decline certiorari because it's strictly a Colorado issue? Or issue a short brief stating that section 3 of the 14th amendment remains in effect and they will not disturb a state court's conclusion on a state matter? I think it's a real mud hole to step in if they were to try to get into issues that would overturn the court's decision, procedural questions notwithstanding.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Translation:

RFK is a lunatic
Rogan is an idiot
Elon Musk is a clown

In case you need more evidence that Joe Rogan is an idiot. Watch the full video. Amazing.

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

Yeah I have known Rogan to be a meat head for some time. I really like some of his interviews with comedians, pro wrestlers, musicians, and the like-- he can be very engaging and funny. But when he starts talking to scientists his questions and musings drive me freaking nuts. Big Durrr energy.

[falafel]

In case you need more evidence that Joe Rogan is an idiot. Watch the full video. Amazing.

Embedded Tweet

Joe is an idiot, but his guest (whoever that is) is even worse.

[USUC]

Yeah I have known Rogan to be a meat head for some time. I really like some of his interviews with comedians, pro wrestlers, musicians, and the like-- he can be very engaging and funny. But when he starts talking to scientists his questions and musings drive me freaking nuts. Big Durrr energy.

Joe Rogan is just one of the many casualties of the post Covid world. His strength before this was being the admitted dummy in the room but asking questions from a dummy point of view while giving "smarter" guests unlimited time to explain. He's always been open to conspiracy but it was kept in check. He's become much more militant and much more convinced of his own brilliance since.

[All-American]

I wonder if the Supreme Court will even get to questions of law. What if they decline certiorari because it's strictly a Colorado issue? Or issue a short brief stating that section 3 of the 14th amendment remains in effect and they will not disturb a state court's conclusion on a state matter? I think it's a real mud hole to step in if they were to try to get into issues that would overturn the court's decision, procedural questions notwithstanding.

I think it is REALLY unlikely they will decline certiorari. As soon as one state says he is on the ballot, you have a split they need to resolve. They may not go into questions of how or whether Colorado law handles this kind of issue, assuming that it accepts that any state law procedure can ever handle this kind of issue.

[Northwestcoug]

LOL. Yes, please keep talking about issues with the media.

Still haven't listened to a single episode of Rogan.

[Commando]

Joe Rogan is just one of the many casualties of the post Covid world. His strength before this was being the admitted dummy in the room but asking questions from a dummy point of view while giving "smarter" guests unlimited time to explain. He's always been open to conspiracy but it was kept in check. He's become much more militant and much more convinced of his own brilliance since.

Yeah such a weird thing. Captain Ivermectin is much less likable than the dense but lovable weed smoking, deer meat eating, ice bath dunker he used to be...