[Rugoz]

What other reasons?

You're saying the SCOTUS can/will only decide whether "officers of the US" includes the president. I think they'll judge the entire case.

How can insurrection be just a civil case? It's an offense against the state, by definition.

It's constitutional law, written 150 years ago. Why would criminal law matter?

[wat0n]

It's constitutional law, written 150 years ago. Why would criminal law matter?

Because the Constitution is making reference to an offense against the state.

Even the penalty (inability to take public office) is criminal, not civil in nature.

[Rugoz]

The corrupt supreme court (see Thomas) will reject this. I wouldn't get my hopes up.

This is one of those moments were MAGA's and conservatives will forget about their support for "States rights".

Let's keep the slide towards autocracy going.

The fact that the GOP appointed a bunch of originalists might bite them in the ass. Unlikely of course, but not impossible.

[Fasces]

You're saying the SCOTUS can/will only decide whether "officers of the US" includes the president. I think they'll judge the entire case.

I gave four options there. The appeal, though, is on whether the President is a 'federal officer' that 'swore an oath to the constitution'.

How can insurrection be just a civil case?

You know how murder is a crime, yet OJ, being found innocent in a criminal case, was still guilty of it and required to pay damages in the civil case?

This is a civil case about ballot access. The case established that Trump participated in an insurrection as a fact in that civil case.

The appeal did not deny that Trump committed insurrection, this was not in question - it was about whether the President is a federal officer under the 14th amendment that can be barred from the ballot for commiting insurrection.

[Rugoz]

Because the Constitution is making reference to an offense against the state.

Even the penalty (inability to take public office) is criminal, not civil in nature.

Constitutional law referring to criminal law, which changes all the time, seems rather unlikely.

Confederates were disqualified under the 14th amendment, without being convicted of insurrection. There's precedent.

[wat0n]

You know how murder is a crime, yet OJ, being found innocent in a criminal case, was still guilty of it and required to pay damages in the civil case?

This is a civil case about ballot access. The case established that Trump participated in an insurrection as a fact in that civil case.

The appeal did not deny that Trump committed insurrection, this was not in question - it was about whether the President is a federal officer under the 14th amendment that can be barred from the ballot for commiting insurrection.

OJ had to pay damages against private individuals. The main entity damaged by an insurrection is the state itself.

Trump could, of course, be held civilly liable for January 6th if he didn't have immunity. Even if he did not participate, he was likely negligent as proven by how long it took the federal government to aid the Capitol Police. Any private individual harmed by this negligence would win, again, if he didn't have immunity. If he was also shown to have participated in the insurrection, the case for damages is even stronger.

I don't think an inability to be an elected official is a civil penalty either. But I may be wrong, who knows.

Constitutional law referring to criminal law, which changes all the time, seems rather unlikely.

Confederates were disqualified under the 14th amendment, without being convicted of insurrection. There's precedent.

Confederates were pardoned by Lincoln and then Johnson. Accepting such pardons is considered, in the US, to be an admission of guilt for all legal purposes.

[Fasces]

Nonetheless @wat0n , you accept the reality that the court named Trump as guilty and that the appeal was not over whether or not Trump was guilty but whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to presidential candidates, yes? And that the appeal to the USSC is based on that question?

[Istanbuller]

Democrats do not want any Republican name written on ballots. They want one name on it and that is candidate of Democratic Party.

Democrats want one party rule. I remember that Obama was also floating idea of running for third time and being the president for life.

The party's name is Democratic but the party itself is not democratic at all. It is just like Soviet dictatorships name themselves after "Democratic republic of xxx".

[wat0n]

Nonetheless @wat0n , you accept the reality that the court named Trump as guilty and that the appeal was not over whether or not Trump was guilty but whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to presidential candidates, yes? And that the appeal to the USSC is based on that question?

I accept that, but I don't think this criminal matter falls into Colorado's jurisdiction. It's why I think they should wait until the actual trial is finished.

What would happen if Trump was cleared of all charges at the federal level?

[Rancid]

The fact that the GOP appointed a bunch of originalists might bite them in the ass. Unlikely of course, but not impossible.

Perhaps, but nothing puts down this Trumpist/MAGA bullshit at this point.

[Istanbuller]

You may see a wave of many deep blue states removing Trump from ballots. Democrats have a major issue with democracy, free, fair and transparent elections.

[Fasces]

I accept that, but I don't think this criminal matter falls into Colorado's jurisdiction. It's why I think they should wait until the actual trial is finished.

What would happen if Trump was cleared of all charges at the federal level?

Nothing. State jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction are different. You can be found innocent in federal court while at the same time being guilty in state court. This is the 'dual sovereignty' exception.

[Fasces]

You may see a wave of many deep blue states removing Trump from ballots. Democrats have a major issue with democracy, free, fair and transparent elections.

This case was brought by the GOP.

[Istanbuller]

This case was brought by the GOP.

Colorado is a deep blue state. Republicans do not have any say on anything.

Colorado Supreme Court's decision is anti-democratic. It threatens the integrity of US presidential election on nationwide.

[wat0n]

Nothing. State jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction are different. You can be found innocent in federal court while at the same time being guilty in state court. This is the 'dual sovereignty' exception.

Does Colorado have jurisdiction over this matter? I'm asking because it doesn't seem reasonable to believe states can deny candidacy for federal offices arbitrarily.

That's the issue as I see it - precisely because of dual sovereignty, it doesn't seem like any individual state can determine if Trump's guilty.

[Fasces]

Does Colorado have jurisdiction over this matter? I'm asking because it doesn't seem reasonable to believe states can deny candidacy for federal offices arbitrarily.

That's a question. However, giving states the right to do this has been a cornerstone of GOP judicial policy since the VRA, as part of their efforts to gut it. Removing this right would be a big setback for the Federalist Society because it would declare outright that Congress can set rules on voting and candidacy in states for federal elections, and not states themselves.

[Rancid]

That's a question. However, giving states the right to do this has been a cornerstone of GOP judicial policy since the VRA, as part of their efforts to gut it. Removing this right would be a big setback for the Federalist Society because it would declare outright that Congress can set rules on voting and candidacy in states for federal elections, and not states themselves.

Indeed. The GOP is all about state's rights.... Until they don't like it.

[Istanbuller]

Indeed. The GOP is all about state's rights.... Until they don't like it.

Removing a candidate from ballots is not a state's right. They refer protecting minorities from "tyranny of majority rule" when they say states' rights.

[Fasces]

Candidacy and voting are intrinsically linked - they are expressions of the same right. Federal protections for federal candidates opens the door to federal protections for voting in federal elections, for oversight on gerrymandering, for oversight on mail in ballots, etc.

It's Trump vs The Project.

[wat0n]

That's a question. However, giving states the right to do this has been a cornerstone of GOP judicial policy since the VRA, as part of their efforts to gut it. Removing this right would be a big setback for the Federalist Society because it would declare outright that Congress can set rules on voting and candidacy in states for federal elections, and not states themselves.

Let's see what happens when the SCOTUS takes this case (as it will likely do). My understanding is that the VRA doesn't deal with this specific question, though.