A panel of judges made an extraordinary decision. They decided on their own that a person was guilty of treason and/or inciting an insurrection without that person having been charged with either, much less tried and found guilty by a jury of their peers. They did so to make him ineligible to be on the ballot in their state. //

Donald Trump has not been found guilty of either treason or inciting an insurrection, and the U.S. Code for insurrection seems pretty clear that you are ineligible for “any office in the United States” if you’re found guilty. //

Trump has a number of federal-law defenses: that Section 3 isn’t self-executing without implementing legislation or a criminal conviction, that it doesn’t cover the president, that the First Amendment protects Trump’s speech and wasn’t implicitly repealed in that regard by the 14th Amendment, that the Republican Party has a First Amendment right of association to put an ineligible candidate on its primary ballot, and even that Trump may have a legal defense because the Senate didn’t convict him on effectively the same charge. //

I do believe, however, that there is something deeply wrong with the Democrats going along with this and the courts that are making it happen. If you are accused of engaging in treason or insurrection, you should be tried for your crimes and punished appropriately. That is the criminal justice system that we have and it requires a jury of your peers unless you as the accused decide to forgo a jury trial.

But the courts cannot, seemingly on a whim, decide to make a person de facto guilty of a crime in order to justify a ruling they want to make. That is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and could have far-reaching complications if that sort of mentality takes deeper root in our judicial system.

If he is tried and found guilty of treason or insurrection, I’d be fine with the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision because the system worked as it was supposed to. You may not like those results, but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal. But there was no trial. A panel of judges decided he was guilty without a trial.

That should alarm us all. //

anon-ubjh
a day ago
" … but it is incumbent on the accused and his lawyers to prove his innocence either in trial or on appeal." WHAT? So now we are a country where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent? You have it backwards: it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. //

FrankD92
a day ago
Umm, actually, Mr. Cunningham, under our system it is NOT “incumbent on the accused to PROVE his innocence.” It is incumbent upon the accuser to prove guilt. And that is a HUGE distinction between a Republic vs totalitarianism. Quit adopting the language of the Marxist Left. //

Liberius
a day ago
It is NOT the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence. It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the guilt of the defendant.

How the heck have so many people in this country forgotten that simple concept?

etba_ss
a day ago edited
He shouldn't need to name check Trump. The problem is the decision by the court, not who it is against. The reaction to the ruling should be the same whether it was against Trump, DeSantis or Haley. By making it about Trump, it often clouds the more relevant legal question, because retreat to their camps and either dig in or celebrate it because they love or loathe Trump. ... //

IdeClair
a day ago
If Trump can be removed for a crime he wasn't charged with, much less convicted for, then Biden can be removed for non-convictions too..After all, Biden did commit treason when he took kickbacks from foreign governments..

anon-kvbw IdeClair
a day ago
More that that, Trump was acquitted for the insurrection charge by the Senate would they considered one of the House's serial impeachments. In addition, the Supremes have made it clear in a number of cases that the President is not an 'officer' of the United States. The statute applies to appointed officials, not the President.

Lee Zeldin
@LeeMZeldin
·
Follow
It is the Colorado Supreme Court’s unconstitutional, unambiguous and un-American belief that the time has come in our country to destroy democracy in the name of democracy.
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
Breaking: The Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from holding office, citing section three of the 14th Amendment, removing him from the state’s 2024 ballot.
https://courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
6:39 PM · Dec 19, 2023 //

polyjunkie
an hour ago edited
This should take the Supremes about a half hour to adjudicate. If it stands, then every Red State should disqualify FJB. Let’s see how that works out….

PS - the Constitution lists the criteria for being President. Being approved by left-wing judges is not one of them. And the 14th Amendment does not apply since the Congress impeached Trump and the Senate found him not guilty. Therefore no “insurrection” occurred. Done. //

Cynical Optimist polyjunkie
2 hours ago
That is precisely the point Jonathan Turley made this afternoon, saying that the ruling opens the door for groups in every state in the nation to disqualify any politician they dislike or want off the ballot. //

anon-d2hb
2 hours ago
Not even charged with, let alone convicted of insurrection, and CO Supreme Court rules that he is an insurrectionist. Our courts have become centers of politicized injustice. Charged and tried have been thrown completely out the window. //

Ed in North Texas
2 hours ago edited
As I noted elsewhere, this looks like a judicial setup. Lower court judge rules Trump engaged in "insurrection" but the Amendment didn't apply to the President. The appeal to the CO supremes then allowed four of the seven SCP appointees to take a ruling that he had engaged in insurrection and rule that the Amendment did apply and boot him off the ballot.

Gee, it almost seems like tinfoil hat time, except legally it works.

Edit: Temporarily it works. Doubt the SCOTUS will buy it, but we do live in "interesting times".

SquidbillyCPO
16 hours ago
First of all that BS about the Supreme Court is just that BS and it would be unconstitutional to boot. Congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate the coequal judicial branch and the constitution is very clear Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments the only power they have is impeachment. Like gun control these tyrants in waiting just can’t seem to bring themselves to submit a constitutional amendment which is the right way to do it. And the same with legislative term limits, they are unconstitutional the Supreme Court ruled on that decades ago. //

etba_ss
19 hours ago
If you don't include Congressional staffers in term limits, stock trades and lobbying bans, you will make the problem worse, not better. Instead of having career Congressman and Senators, we will have career staffers who will have all the power and corruption of Congress now, only without the accountability of facing the voters and answering for their votes. //

anon-d4h1
20 hours ago
There's a huge trap here that I have never seen anybody mention in regards to term limits: staff.

Both committee staff and personal staff members.

I used to work on the Hill, and the power senior staff wields can be almost limitless.

They're in place before most members are elected, and they'll be there after those members are gone. Their expertise is almost always deferred to by the members. And as a result appropriations bills, procurement priorities, authorization language already reflect staff priorities and biases more than anything.

Imagine what the impact would be of reducing the time in office of elected members? The power of unelected staff members will grow even stronger.

Any move for term limits (which may in itself be a laudable goal), must include airtight limitations on staff tenure. //

Chris Paige
11 hours ago
None of these reforms will work. Term limits will become term minimums (as no decent candidate will challenge somebody who is leaving soon anyway & no one will fund such candidates as it's not worth it). Besides, it's done nothing in NYC (as you just get a rotating crew of losers).

The key is we need to make Congressional elections more competitive.

First, we need to abolish campaign donation limits. If someone's willing to give you $1MM to run for Congress, then God bless.

Second, we need to limit donations to NATURAL persons who are eligible to vote for the candidate at issue. This would increase intra-party disputes as. national donors couldn't enforce uniformity.

Third, we need to outlaw donations by government workers, government contractors, and employees of highly-regulated firms (ie. if you're company is FDIC insured or part of the Fed, you can't donate.).

Fourth, we need to redraw Congressional map lines to MAXIMIZE inter-party competition.

Fifth, we need to strip the media/social media of their outsized role - neither should be allowed to censor anything that isn't actually illegal.

Sixth, we need to limit secrecy - everything should become public after 20 years w/ exceedingly few exceptions.

The current federal income tax system is clearly broken — unfair, overly complex, and almost impossible for most Americans to understand. But there is a reasonable, nonpartisan alternative before Congress that is both fair and easy to understand. A system that allows you to keep your whole paycheck and only pay taxes on what you spend.

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessities is 23% compared to combining the 15% income tax bracket with the 7.65% of employee payroll taxes under the current system -- both of which will be eliminated!

Important to note: the FairTax is the only tax plan currently being proposed that includes the removal of the payroll tax.

Keep Your Paycheck

For the first time in recent history, American workers will get to keep every dime they earn; including what would have been paid in federal income taxes and payroll taxes. You will get an instant raise in your pay!

Social Security & Medicare Funding

Benefits will not change. The FairTax actually puts these programs on a more solid funding foundation. Instead of being funded by taxes on workers’ wages, which is a small pool, they’ll be funded by taxes on overall consumption by all residents.

Get a Tax Refund in Advance on Purchases of Basic Necessities

The FairTax provides a progressive program called a prebate. This gives every legal resident household an “advance refund” at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free. The prebate prevents an unfair burden on low-income families.

Can you pass the U.S. citizenship exam?

Every year, the United States welcomes nearly 1 million new citizens through naturalization ceremonies, all of whom must pass the American citizenship exam by answering 6 out of 10 questions correctly.

While 90% of legal immigrant applicants pass the exam, only 30% of U.S. adults and just 3% of public high school students in America can pass it!

PragerU is determined to educate millions of young people about American history, civics, and the values that have made this country great. If you've watched enough PragerU videos, passing the exam should be a breeze.

Take this quiz to see if you can pass the U.S. citizenship exam.

Conservative lawyers face the brunt of the weaponization of the bar, whether it be Jeff Clark, Ken Paxton, John Eastman, or now Todd Rokita.

Chris Paige
3 hours ago
Here's the problem: if you believe in qualified immunity for cops, you can scarcely argue against immunity for presidents. That is, the logic of qualified immunity is that lower level officials couldn't do their jobs if they could be sued by everyone/anyone for their errors - same w/ president. Basically, any local prosecutor can influence public policy by forcing every president to go through risks/costs of criminal trial whenever that prosecutor deems appropriate - that would force presidents to consider the risk of trial before making a decision. Are they doing what they think is right or are they avoiding trial?

You see the critical point here is that acquittal doesn't solve the problem. Lots of people wouldn't be willing to be branded a criminal & go to criminal trial even if they knew they're going to be acquitted - it's just too much power. Imagine if NY could put SCOTUS on trial for various crimes - who cares about the outcome? It would give NY too much influence over SCOTUS. Same thing here.

So, regardless of what either side claims in their pleadings, the question of immunity of a former President from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office is novel and presents an “issue of first impression” for the Courts to resolve. Any claim to the contrary is legally ignorant or expresses a bias as to what the outcome should be. The question has never been answered, because it has never before been an issue that needed an answer. //

Smith has said that “no man is above the law” – and that’s just about it. That might seem a bit flip on my part, but in an Opposition that has 42 pages of “argument,” I count that phrase being used six times in the first nine pages alone.

What the former President has is the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a Supreme Court çase decided in 1982. //

the Supreme Court took the matter up prior to trial and overruled both lower courts, finding that a President does enjoy absolute immunity from civil damage lawsuits for acts taken while in office pursuant to his authority as President. The boundary for conduct falling within that absolute immunity was acts within the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibility. Former President Trump contends that all the operative facts relied upon by Smith in the indictment fall within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility while in office. //

What the Supreme Court did not say in Fitzgerald was that the immunity recognized therein would extend to immunity from criminal prosecution for acts “within the outer perimeter” of Trump’s official responsibility. Smith’s response to Fitzgerald relies primarily on that point. But the Court did not say that such immunity would not apply either – that question was not before the Court. //

The Court did say that the public has a greater interest in criminal prosecutions than in civil damages lawsuits, and that fact played a role in not allowing Fitzgerald to pursue his case against Nixon personally. But the same interests in granting immunity – laid out in the text above – applies in both situations, and the Supreme Court did not suggest that the case for immunity would be less compelling if the issue before it involved a criminal prosecution. //

Yes, it would create a substantial barrier to even the justified pursuit of a criminal prosecution of any future President for alleged criminal behavior while in office. But it would not be an insurmountable barrier. The “Impeachment” process in the Constitution includes what is referred to as the “Judgment” clause – Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, and Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

The House of Representatives impeached former President Trump for actions relating to the 2020 election, but he was not convicted by the Senate. His motion argues that criminal prosecution is allowed for conduct in office following an impeachment, conviction, and removal from office as stated in the “Judgment Clause.”

There is a logic and purpose for finding such a prerequisite. Impeachment and conviction, by the House and Senate respectively, provide the imprimatur of legitimacy from a co-equal branch of government closest to the people. It would provide independent justification for a subsequent elected Executive to prosecute the individual who was the prior elected Executive. Had the Senate convicted President Trump, that would have been a bipartisan “Judgment” that he had, in fact, committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” requiring his removal and disqualification from holding any office in the future. Such a finding would insulate a later criminal prosecution from claims of being politically motivated.

In a very real way, what partisan prosecutors are doing validates the exact point Trump is making as it confirms the risk identified by the Court in Fitzgerald.