Justices find the Disqualification Clause does apply to the presidency, but their ruling is almost certain to be appealed.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9772125

In a landmark decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that former president Donald Trump is disqualified from appearing on the state’s primary ballot next year.

The Justices’ 4-3 ruling concludes that Trump engaged in an insurrection with his words and actions around the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and therefore cannot hold the nation’s highest office again.

“We are also cognizant that we travel in uncharted territory,” wrote Colorado’s Supreme Court in its unsigned 213-page decision.

This is the first time a state’s high court has concluded the 14th Amendment’s Civil War-era Disqualification Clause applies to both the office of the presidency and the actions of the former president. Supreme Courts in Minnesota and Michigan dismissed similar complaints.

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” wrote the Justices. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”

In a statement, the Trump campaign called the ruling “a completely flawed decision” and said it would swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    37·
    11 months ago

    Someone had the balls to finally do it! Fantastic news. There’s no way this doesn’t end up going to the Supreme Court though and that could be a shit show

    • light_mnemonic@lemmy.world
      12·
      11 months ago

      What I would do to be part of the team that gets to argue before the supreme court on:

      1. The overwhelming evidence of the existence of the ‘alternative legislator slate’/‘Vice President’ conspiracy.

      2. That said conspiracy’s critical legal argument, as to the Vice President’s role in “open[ing] all the certificates”, showed clear malicious intent at circumvention of constitutional and federal law.

      3. That - regardless of the veracity of point 2 - the conspiracy’s legal backing was officially dismissed in Texas district court on Jan 1st, and in the appeals court the next day.

      4. That - despite point 3 - president Trump and his personal lawyers continued to individually take multiple actions up to and on Jan 6th to coordinate the conspiracy, including inciting a threat of violence over the capital building.

  • lewdian69@lemmy.world
    10·
    11 months ago

    But “The court stayed its decision until Jan. 4, or until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the case. Colorado officials say the issue must be settled by Jan. 5, the deadline for the state to print its presidential primary ballots.”

    So… another way to get out of actually enforcing any real consequences.

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 months ago

      I’ve read your post a couple of times. What do you mean?

      Is the date set, a way to avoid enforcing the disqualification? To me it sounds like a date that epecifically is set to enforce the result of the issue

      • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        If the highest court agrees to hear the case, and if it is still in process when Colorado’s ballot hits its certification deadline on Jan. 5, the Justices ordered that Trump’s name should be included on the GOP primary ballot, ahead of the court’s final decision.

        So if the Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal, and doesn’t decide before the deadline, Trump’s name will be included on the ballot.

        • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          Still though. If the name is in the ballot and he is disqualified after that, clearly he can’t be voted on!? I mean even if hebgetsbelleceted at the primary and is deemed unfit after the elections, I’d like to think he can be removed. Being on a ballot does not make him fit by itself

      • lewdian69@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        What theUnlikely said. They’ve postponed their decision taking effect until the day before the cut off. If the SCOTUS agrees to hear the appeal, which they probably will, there is zero chance they will rule before January 5th. SCOTUS may not even respond as to whether they will take the case until the cut off, what with the holidays. I’m just very cynical. They should have had their judgement applied immediately and only stayed if the higher court responded instead of the other way around.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      let’s dive in here: what’s wrong with following the constitution as its clearly written? please come up with a legal justification to ignore this amendment that doesn’t apply to any of the other amendments.