I was hoping nothing important would happen because I'm busy finishing my book again 😂
I'll answer this one:
the CO Supreme Court just ruled that the 14th amend means Trump can’t be on the state ballot. How does one appeal a state court decision to SCOTUS? (Other than a death penalty sentence)
Federal issues are appealable to federal courts.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. (See Marbury v. Madison)
A key point here Marc reiterates a few times is that the judge in the original case has ruled as a matter of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection. This leaves the higher courts with ruling on matters of whether the law applies unless they find grave error in the judge's ruling, a high standard. Bottom line, Trump has an uphill battle as seen here today, and upcoming with USSC.
@mastodonmigration A lawyer friend here in CO praised the first judge for ruling separately on the facts and the law for exactly this reason. Much harder to overturn her ruling that he is an insurrectionist this way, pushing the higher courts into a corner.
I think this case is SCOTUS worst nightmare. I can see it going any number of ways, none of them very good. If they rule against Colorado, they will have incentivized future insurrectionists. If they rule for Colorado, they will have incentivized future 14A challenges in every state.
@Teri_Kanefield One question please, this appears to regard the primary election. Does the US Constitution even apply? Can't parties just name whoever they want as candidate (thinking 1968 Dems)? If CO does this regarding the general election ballot I can see it meaning a lot more.
Yes, the #USConstitution applies. The US Constitution requires that presidents be at least 35, so the states have to filter out people who don't meet that qualification from appearing on the ballot. Like you couldn't just vote in King Charles because he's not a natural-born US citizen, so the states wouldn't put him on the ballot.
Have to suggest a minor correction here, but I believe that’s not a Marbury issue, but rather is better considered as a Martin v Hunter’s Lesee issue.
I suggest this because it’s not about the power of judicial review in the federal system, but rather appears to be about the power of the SCOTUS to review decisions of state courts of last resort construing federal law.
@Teri_Kanefield Figured i’d ask you before I get all frothy in the mouth and short on brains…
If Supreme Court upholds this (or heck, is like “If its not for this, I don’t know what the clause is for!?”) would I be all anti-democratic to be kinda ok with that?
@Mea@Teri_Kanefield they would need a justifiable reason, or courts would be more likely to require the WI SoS to place him on the ballot. The Colorado plaintiffs took on a longshot theory and won (for now at least). Is there a theory that could keep Biden off the ballot in WI that would actually work?
@Teri_Kanefield Am I wrong thinking Trump would be taking a huge risk pursuing an appeal of this ruling? If SCOTUS affirms the Colorado ruling, wouldn’t that mean the Disqualification Clause applies.
@SnarkyLibruhl@Teri_Kanefield my guess would be, if he doesn't appeal, then the CO ruling that he is an insurrectionist would apply by default. Other state high courts wouldn't be obligated to follow that ruling, but then citizens suing to block him from their state ballots could appeal to SCOTUS. So one way or another they will likely hear an appeal based on the CO ruling
Add comment