January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Seacoaster(1)]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing?

Read the lower court and the Colorado Supreme Court decisions. These are civil cases; the presumption of innocence applicable in criminal cases is not relevant. Not sure that "insurrection" requires a concomitant criminal conviction. Again, read the decisions.

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing?

They had a five day civil trial, cradle, with both sides putting forward evidence and arguments. The trial judge found that Trump "engaged in insurrection", violating the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Only one of the 7 appeals judges disagreed with that finding. Two others made process legal arguments, but 4 decided that he was disqualified and should be removed from the ballot. They stayed their order until Jan 4 to provide an opportunity for appeal. Due process.

[tech37]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

[CU88a]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

[tech37]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

spin is on its way...

Might be more of a lazy response. Or active trolling.

I do think, however, that the much more preferable way to defeat Trump and MAGA is at the ballot box, but the fundamentals of rule of law, due process, etc is again being revealed as anathema to MAGA supporters. Not to us long time Republicans, now labeled RINO's by MAGA.

It's rich that Trump's initial political prominence was on the back of a specious conspiracy claim attempting to keep that skinny black guy with the funny name off the ballot. I wonder whether tech thought that was "democracy"?

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

yup, better described as "lazy".
Lazy thinking, too lazy to bother to learn who filed the suit, too lazy to read it, too lazy to even know that it's about the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Too lazy to know what the Constitution says about those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution and then "engage in insurrection". MAGA.

Do you not care as a "layman", as a voter, as a citizen what the Constitution says? Or just too lazy?
Or just too MAGA?

see what I wrote above in prior post. I'd rather see Trump and MAGA defeated at the ballot box. I'd add 'ignominiously defeated'.

[tech37]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

see what I wrote above in prior post. I'd rather see Trump and MAGA defeated at the ballot box. I'd add 'ignominiously defeated'.

There you go mdlax, I agree. As for the rest of your posts... your typical, condescending BS.

Re laziness... it's way early but if next Nov the choice is either Trump or Biden, I'll take a complete pass as I did in 2020.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I think it does come off as "lawyerly interpretation," but democracy is not just limited to elections and counting votes.

Democracy is also based on rules, pre-established, functional standards against which activities and behaviors are measured -- and that is what Courts do in the service of democracy. It is not anti-democratic to establish a constitution (through a process created by the people), create a constitutional standard (through a process provided for in the constitution itself), hold a trial at which conduct is evaluated pursuant to the legal standard so established, and for the court to thereafter fashion the remedy, which, in this case, is called for by the -- you guessed it -- constitutional standard. This is basic democratic republic stuff -- application of the rule of law to persons who apply for a job; it is the subject matter that is momentous.

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

see what I wrote above in prior post. I'd rather see Trump and MAGA defeated at the ballot box. I'd add 'ignominiously defeated'.

There you go mdlax, I agree. As for the rest of your posts... your typical, condescending BS.

Re laziness... it's way early but if next Nov the choice is either Trump or Biden, I'll take a complete pass as I did in 2020.

You call it "condescending", but I think as a citizen you should bother to understand some basic civics before throwing around words like "democracy" and "constitutional", much less call this about "Democrat desperation". Basic facts, basic civics.

Your post indicated a complete lack of effort...I call that "lazy".

Here's some quick read help if you don't want to bother to read the actual opinion which someone else linked.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics ... index.html

[Kismet]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

We are all going to find out soon enough. This is going to SCOTUS...and quickly.
Maybe wait for that.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Just for the record (and someone may already have pointed this out), the vote was 6-1 to sustain the finding that Trump had committed or aided insurrection. The Plaintiffs were GOP members and functionaries. The theory of the case was advanced and elucidated by conservatives, J. Michael Luttig, William Baude, and Michael Stokes Paulsen. It doesn't appear to be "Democrat desperation."

[cradleandshoot]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing?

They had a five day civil trial, cradle, with both sides putting forward evidence and arguments. The trial judge found that Trump "engaged in insurrection", violating the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Only one of the 7 appeals judges disagreed with that finding. Two others made process legal arguments, but 4 decided that he was disqualified and should be removed from the ballot. They stayed their order until Jan 4 to provide an opportunity for appeal. Due process.

Two weeks to appeal to the Supremes is a pretty short window. Either the Supremes expedite a decision or the stay has to be extended until they do so. The 14th amendment was directed towards repatriated confederates who actually were involved in an insurrection against the government. In due course the Supremes will decide the issue. An insurrection is defined as a military attempt to overthrow a government. This was nothing more than an out of control riot by a bunch of idiots. Calling it an insurrection is an insult to actual insurrections that involve a lot of angry people with guns and the willingness to kill and remove those that are in power. You should thank your lucky stars these people were nothing more than an unruly mob that didn't have a single weapon nor did they have a plan.

[MDlaxfan76]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing?

They had a five day civil trial, cradle, with both sides putting forward evidence and arguments. The trial judge found that Trump "engaged in insurrection", violating the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Only one of the 7 appeals judges disagreed with that finding. Two others made process legal arguments, but 4 decided that he was disqualified and should be removed from the ballot. They stayed their order until Jan 4 to provide an opportunity for appeal. Due process.

Two weeks to appeal to the Supremes is a pretty short window. Either the Supremes expedite a decision or the stay has to be extended until they do so. The 14th amendment was directed towards repatriated confederates who actually were involved in an insurrection against the government. In due course the Supremes will decide the issue. An insurrection is defined as a military attempt to overthrow a government. This was nothing more than an out of control riot by a bunch of idiots. Calling it an insurrection is an insult to actual insurrections that involve a lot of angry people with guns and the willingness to kill and remove those that are in power. You should thank your lucky stars these people were nothing more than an unruly mob that didn't have a single weapon nor did they have a plan.

First, SCOTUS will be swiftly presented with the choice to accept the appeal or not and they will make that choice swiftly. If they accept the appeal, as is likely, the stay will continue, which means that Trump will likely be on the ballot if they print as scheduled. A ruling before the primary could create a situation necessitating a re-printing but otherwise, he's on the ballot. Someone may correct me on that...

No, an insurrection is merely a violent uprising to overthrow the government, it needn't be a formal military fight. The Colorado courts, both at trial and on appeal, found that Trump "engaged in insurrection". Read their decision. Indeed, I don't think any court has ruled otherwise, though various courts in other states have found other reasons to deny efforts to keep him off the ballot. SCOTUS could rule otherwise, but I think that if they overturn the Colorado ruling it likely won't be on that basis. They'll take a narrower approach.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Shall we start talking about Supreme Court member recusal?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

Ignorant response, do a little research to educate yourself on who filed the initial lawsuit.

Ignorant? Maybe. Maybe you can't read?

I clearly said I can't speak to legal aspects...if that's ignorant, I'm guilty. I know enough to ask if this is constitutional?

I'm not taking any side here, just trying to make sense from a layman's POV. Outside of lawyerly interpretation, I doubt this is anyone's idea of democracy. I couldn't care less who filed what initial lawsuit... it all stinks. Capiche?

see what I wrote above in prior post. I'd rather see Trump and MAGA defeated at the ballot box. I'd add 'ignominiously defeated'.

There you go mdlax, I agree. As for the rest of your posts... your typical, condescending BS.

Re laziness... it's way early but if next Nov the choice is either Trump or Biden, I'll take a complete pass as I did in 2020.

You call it "condescending", but I think as a citizen you should bother to understand some basic civics before throwing around words like "democracy" and "constitutional", much less call this about "Democrat desperation". Basic facts, basic civics.

Your post indicated a complete lack of effort...I call that "lazy".

Here's some quick read help if you don't want to bother to read the actual opinion which someone else linked.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/19/politics ... index.html

You can't post a link to CNN. That is all propaganda. You need to post a link to a guy on the site formerly know as twitter or one of Old Soldier's go to sources....Washington Examiner, National Review or New York Post or maybe The Hill.

[cradleandshoot]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

[cradleandshoot]

IMO the voters should be allowed to vote for the candidate of their choice. Trump may be a scumbag on many levels. If he is the Republican candidate then you make a personal choice to vote for him or not. I won't vote for him and I won't vote for Biden. A rerun of 2020, two incompetent and substandard candidates being potentially put forward for the American people to choose. What a country this is, not voting is looking more and more like the the most rational option.

[Kismet]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Tricky arrangement for the Supes - to overturn the decision they would have to toss the facts of the original Colorado case supported by testimony and evidence at a civil proceeding which is a pretty high bar PLUS find that POTUS and VPOTUS are not officers of the USA per the 14th Amendment.

And, of course sleazy Clarence is never going to recuse.

BTW the suit was not brought by the Deep State but rather by counsel for VOTERS in Colorado.

[cradleandshoot]

I guess I'm not understanding how this ruling came about. Isn't the concept of innocent until proven guilty a foundation of our legal system? The last time I checked trump hasn't been convicted of any offense yet. Would that not be the Colorado court putting the cart before the horse? They are taking punitive action against a man who is still technically innocent. Is my logic flawed or is there something here that I'm missing? If by some reason trump is cleared of the conspiracy charges against him then the Colorado ruling becomes meaningless. If trump is convicted and I believe he will then there is merit to the Colorado ruling.

Sorry I certainly can't speak on legal aspects C&S but sure looks like Democrat desperation (see polls) and doesn't look much like, what most I think consider, democracy. Buckle up, it's only going to get worse.

A cynical person could apply a term near and dear to the hearts of all FLP folks...voter suppression at its finest. Unless this decision is reversed there are folks in Colorado who will be denied their right and privilege to vote for the candidate of their choice. The hatred directed at trump is the rationale for denying Americans the option of voting for him. The 14th amendment never clarifies that the POTUS is included in the intent of the amendment. This should be a humdinger for the Supremes to sort out. I'll go out on a limb and predict a 6 to 3 decision overturning the Colorado decision. IMO without trump being convicted of anything yet this decision is not even in the same category of due process.

Tricky arrangement for the Supes - to overturn the decision they would have to toss the facts of the original Colorado case supported by testimony and evidence at a civil proceeding which is a pretty high bar PLUS find that POTUS and VPOTUS are not officers of the USA per the 14th Amendment.

And, of course sleazy Clarence is never going to recuse.

I may be incorrect but I believe similar court cases in 3 states have already been overturned. It all boils down to how the Supremes dissect the 14th amendment. It's original intent was to disallow confederates from serving in any government positions. It will also give the Supremes an opportunity to clarify what an insurrection really is.