235

Trump loses first of several bids to toss suit seeking to block him from Colorado ballot (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former President Donald Trump has lost the first of several attempts to throw out a lawsuit that seeks to block him from the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado, based on the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against insurrectionists holding public office.

Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace this week rejected Trump’s bid to get the lawsuit dismissed on free-speech grounds.

The former president still has several pending challenges against the case, which was initiated by a liberal government watchdog group.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wonder if Trump will be jailed before the coming nuclear apocalypse.

[-] kmartburrito@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Solid maybe

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Colorado election officials say there’s a “hard deadline” to resolve the dispute before January 5, when the ballot printing process begins for the March 5 Republican primary.

A post-Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment says American officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution are disqualified from future office if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or if they have “given aid or comfort” to insurrectionists.

CREW’s chief counsel Donald Sherman said in a statement that the group is “pleased with the Court’s well-reasoned and very detailed order, leading to a thorough decision, and look forward to presenting our clients’ case at trial.”

However, Griswold has said in court filings that she “believes that Mr. Trump incited the insurrection” and therefore wants the judge to determine if the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist ban can be applied through Colorado state law, because she has “sworn a solemn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to effectuate its requirements.”

Legal scholars are also split on how the 14th Amendment could be applied to Trump and how the ban would be implemented – whether by state officials, Congress or a court – given the existing ambiguities in the law.

The original article contains 627 words, the summary contains 236 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] shalafi@lemmy.world -30 points 1 year ago

Don't see how this stands as he hasn't been convicted of anything (yet!).

[-] GoddessNoAi@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 1 year ago

The 14th Amendment doesn't require a conviction, and innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply because this is a civil suit.

I'll be surprised if this doesn't go all the way to SCOTUS though.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

... and innocent until proven guilty...

Just for further clarification... it's not a factual innocence. In reality the line is 'a presumption of innocence until proven guilty'- it's a prescription for how one is to be treated (like an innocent person) during the process of proving that guilt in a criminal proceeding.

If one kills another without just cause, they are guilty of murder. It may or may not ever reach a court of law, and they may be acquitted, but they're still guilty of murder. guilt is determined by the act (and the motive of the act,)

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

To follow your apt points: it is important to remember that "not guilty" and "innocent" are two different things.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

That's not how 14 amendment supposed to work. It doesn't put him to jail, it just makes him ineligible to run for position in the government. There is a gateway for senate to override it and let the affected person to run.

Of course SCOTUS can change this and interpret it the way you are saying for partisan reasons, but there's nothing implying that one has to be convicted of anything, only involved.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Of course SCOTUS can change this and interpret it the way you are saying for partisan reasons, but there’s nothing implying that one has to be convicted of anything, only involved.

Not really. the 14th is pretty explicit: if you participate in an insurrection, having taken an oath to defend this country, you are ineligible to hold further office in this country.

While I agree, it should be settled a court so due process is respected (also part of the 14th, incidentally,) ... I'm perfectly okay with that process happening in a civilian court. as it's happening in coloroado's lawsuit, for example.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I mean, there's video.

[-] No_Ones_Slick_Like_Gaston@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The pee tapes? I want them to be public yes.

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023

235 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers

1920 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News