• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    645 months ago

    The Colorado lower court also found it was an insurrection, but that an insurrection didn’t disqualify a person from running for President (because of some very specific wording in the constitution).

    So both sides in the case appealed and now here we are.

    • @shalafi
      link
      English
      335 months ago

      Knowing it would be appealed, no matter the ruling, the lower court found it was an insurrection. The next court had to take that as a factual finding. They could not argue or retry that question. It is now a legal fact.

      Brilliant move! That judge took one for the team, called a coward and a traitor. And you see what we have here today. (insert wasted.meme)

      • @The_Vampire
        link
        135 months ago

        That’s not how American courts work? The upper court can find issue with practically anything it likes.

        • @Reddfugee42
          link
          17
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          That’s not how American courts work?

          Nope. The court of appeals can find fault with the methods, procedure, precedent etc but not the facts.

          (Also, that’s not how question marks work.)

          • @The_Vampire
            link
            85 months ago

            But here’s the thing: they could easily say the method that led to the finding is wrong. It’s not a fact.

            • @Madison420
              link
              -45 months ago

              If it’s decided by the lower court it is held as fact. It may not in your opinion be correct but it is verifiably a fact at this point.

        • @Katana314
          link
          English
          55 months ago

          Lower court: “We find that since the man was found dead from dehydration, he must have been killed by the accused’s witchcraft that sucked his fluids!”
          Higher court: Looking at a body covered in bruises from a long fall “I’m sorry, what…?”

        • @Madison420
          link
          -15 months ago

          Not fact finding they can kick it back to lower courts and say try it again but if the lower court says no they’re stuck with it.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
        link
        745 months ago

        Good! That criminal shouldn’t be in charge of a Popsicle stand, let alone the most powerful country on earth.

      • @TootSweet
        link
        English
        245 months ago

        …unless SCOTUS overturns it.

        • Drusas
          link
          fedilink
          325 months ago

          How can SCOTUS even have jurisdiction when the Constitution specifically gives the power to oversee elections to the States? This seems more like it should require Congress to change the Constitution if the federal government wants the power to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            195 months ago

            States are allowed to make their own rules but they aren’t allowed to contradict the US Constitution. Since the US Constitution is subject to the political leanings of the current court, who tf knows what’s ever going to happen.

            • Drusas
              link
              fedilink
              165 months ago

              I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but they are following the Constitution in making this decision. The Constitution does not require a conviction.

              • @TootSweet
                link
                English
                45 months ago

                I mean, three of the SCOTUS were appointed by the guy who tried to coup the U.S. government and a fourth is married to someone who also tried to coup the U.S. government. I don’t think it’s so much about whether the arguments why they “can’t” overturn it are good arguments or not at this point. It’s like telling a pidgeon to stop shitting on the chess board because shitting on the board is not a legal move in chess.

            • @Madison420
              link
              -15 months ago

              It has no constitutional implication aside from the state constitution. The supreme court can’t touch that issue.

        • @andrewta
          link
          85 months ago

          Not sure why you got down voted.

        • @Madison420
          link
          05 months ago

          They can’t, that’s not how the Supreme Court works.

          • @TootSweet
            link
            English
            35 months ago

            Reuters:

            The Colorado Supreme Court paused its own ruling pending review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which Trump said he will immediately seek.

            NPR

            Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, told NPR that as long as there’s a petition for U.S. Supreme Court review in place by Jan. 5, there’s a “99.9%” chance that Trump will remain on the Colorado primary ballot.

            AP

            The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case.

            If a) Trump seeks review, b) SCOTUS agrees to take up the case, c) SCOTUS overturns Colorado’s Supreme Court’s ruling, and d) all that happens in time, then Trump will appear on the Colorado ballot.

            • @Madison420
              link
              05 months ago

              That’s a pause to see if the court will take it which they can’t.

              • @TootSweet
                link
                English
                25 months ago

                The U.S. Supreme Court “can’t” take up the case in the same sense as Trump “can’t” incite his base to storm the capital building. But that didn’t stop him.

                And as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, we’ve got three Trump appointees on the SCOTUS plus a guy whose wife took part in the January 6 rally and endorsed the attack on the capitol.

                I hope you’re right (and I’m not saying there’s a 0% chance it won’t get overturned – not that it’s going to make a difference whether Trump wins the general election in 2024 either way) but I fear we’re living in a world where “can’t” doesn’t necessarily mean “won’t” and where the U.S. Supreme Court may be totally willing to flout the rules.

      • Sabre363
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        What does that mean? I assume he will be missing out on any potential votes from Colorado?

        • Tlaloc_Temporal
          link
          fedilink
          45 months ago

          Yup, none of Colorado’s 10 votes will be for Trump. Colorado has a winner-take-all method, so even if there are alternate candidates, the difference will probably fracture the republican vote and loose any chance of any votes.

      • stinerman [Ohio]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        Colorado Republican Primary ballot for sure. I haven’t read the decision, but that was the immediate effect.

        I don’t think there’s any way the SCOTUS will let this stand.

    • @Beetschnapps
      link
      8
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

      “States rights”

      You start out in 1954 by saying, “n*****, . n*****, n*****” By 1968 you can’t say “ n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “ n*****.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      45 months ago

      Until a republican doesn’t like that right, in which case TRAMPLE EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM WHERE’S DADDY FED 😭

  • @indepndnt
    link
    105 months ago

    I keep getting more and more glad that I moved here.