Why Aren't we Talking About the SCOTUS?

[Tricky Grama]

I'm sure most listened to the arguments/responses on removing Trump from CO ballot. 
It was impressive, I thought. 
Plus I was pretty amazed at the lefties esp the newest-Jackson. 

Think it'll go 9-1 or 8-1 given Sotomeyer is a nut?

[sunny225]

Well, folks are getting tired of watching the corrupt SCOTUS go through the motions of being the 'justice' bunch. They are either bought and paid for, blackmailed/family threatened, or really believe the communist/socialist drivel.
Besides, it has been said that they have ruled, let them enforce it now. Or something similar.

[Ozarks Tom]

I lost faith in SCOTUS back when Roberts did contortions to agree the penalty in Obamacare was really a tax. They topped it off when they refused to hear Texas' and 8 other States objections to the 2020 election as not having "standing". What possible more standing could those States have than their citizen's votes being diluted and negated by other States unconstitutionally changing their voting laws?

[farmrbrown]

Feb 11, 2024 20:38:34 GMT Ozarks Tom said:

I lost faith in SCOTUS back when Roberts did contortions to agree the penalty in Obamacare was really a tax. They topped it off when they refused to hear Texas' and 8 other States objections to the 2020 election as not having "standing". What possible more standing could those States have than their citizen's votes being diluted and negated by other States unconstitutionally changing their voting laws?

The Obamacare decision was not one I agreed with but I understood the narrow confines the Court applied to it. The things is, Congress did NOT want it to be ruled as a "tax" but the only way it was gonna pass was if it WAS a tax under Article I section 8 of the USC.
I would've been happier had the whole thing been tossed out but as any good lawyer knows, ya gotta look for loopholes, lol.

Also hated how the 2020 election suits went but I said at the time, whoever the state Attorney Generals that filed them, were idiots. They could have easily filed them correctly and Constitutionally but for whatever reason, they failed to see the mistakes that a 1st year law student should.

Don't shoot the messenger, but SCOTUS was 100% right when they threw out Texas' case and several others for not having standing in the SCOTUS.
It's right there in the 11th amendment.

biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/stateimmunity.theeleventhamendment.html#:~:text=A%20state%20may%20not%20be,the%20state%20consents%20to%20jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Amendment limits private actions brought against states in federal court. Its full text provides:



The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign state.



The Eleventh Amendment was ratified in 1798 in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s decision that a South Carolina citizen could sue the state of Georgia for money damages. [Chisholm v. Ga., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)] This decision caused uproar amongst the states because it impinged on the sovereignty of the state, which was supposed to have been retained in the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, the amendment was passed.
The Eleventh Amendment prevents federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over state defendants--the federal court will not even hear the case if a state is the defendant. A state may not be sued in federal court by its own citizen or a citizen of another state, unless the state consents to jurisdiction. [Hans v. La., 134 U.S. 1 (1890)] Consent to the jurisdiction of the federal court may be manifested by the state voluntarily appearing in the court to defend itself on the merits of the case. [Gunter v. A. Coast Line R.R., 200 U.S. 273, 284 (1906)] Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to suits filed against the state in state courts and before federal administrative agencies. [Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999); Fed. Mar. Comm'n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002)] Unless the state or the federal government creates an exception to the state's sovereign immunity, the state is immune from being sued without consent by any citizen in federal courts, state courts, or before federal administrative agencies.

Here's what they did wrong. IF a citizen of Pennsylvania had sued his OWN state in court for violating its election laws, SCOTUS could NOT have rejected the case for "no standing". But they didn't do it that way. No one did in any 50 states and I have no idea why.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Pennsylvania#:~:text=Pennsylvania%2C%20592%20U.S.%20___%20(2020,Biden%20defeated%20incumbent%20Donald%20Trump.

[Ozarks Tom]

Texas and the other States held that those States had changed their voting laws unconstitutionally had affected the citizens of the suing states. In other words, those citizens were damaged irrepairably by their votes being negated through the chicanery of unlawful practices. In a national election every citizen has standing.

[farmrbrown]

Feb 12, 2024 12:50:38 GMT Ozarks Tom said:

Texas and the other States held that those States had changed their voting laws unconstitutionally had affected the citizens of the suing states. In other words, those citizens were damaged irrepairably by their votes being negated through the chicanery of unlawful practices. In a national election every citizen has standing.

Yes Tom, but read the 11th amendment again. I hate that Penn., Michigan, Georgia, etc. illegally changed the rules right before the election and the courts should have stopped it when it happened. But the fact is even IF another state screws your state and/or the rest of the country, a state's sovereignty ends at its border. 
We may not like it but you can't say the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutionally. They DID follow the USC. (11th amendment)
I already told you how it could have been filed correctly, by a citizen of the offending state. A Pennsylvanian coulda/shoulda taken his OWN state to court and as long as the Penn. Gov't gave permission to be sued (I know, that part sucks too) then they WOULD have had legal standing for the SCOTUS to hear that case which WAS the reason the SCOTUS refused to hear those cases in 2020.
That's the one thing that should give you comfort because whether you like how it turned out, if the SCOTUS decides cases by cherry picking which parts of the constitution they want to apply and ignoring other parts.....we ARE screwed.

[sunny225]

What you say may be true but it don't mean that it is right nor good. farmrbrown,

[farmrbrown]

Feb 13, 2024 0:33:47 GMT sunny225 said:

What you say may be true but it don't mean that it is right nor good. farmrbrown ,

Of course not. The only laws that are 100% good, right and moral come from God. Why do you think He gave Samuel a warning to deliver to Israel before anointing Saul as king?

[blackfeather]

I don't see how they can rule otherwise, in order for Trump to even be considered to be removed from a ballot he must be convicted of a crime, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. A man is innocent till proven guilty. So he can't be removed from a ballot for an accusation. The law in question most likely doesn't even apply to him.

[farmrbrown]

Feb 22, 2024 20:01:04 GMT blackfeather said:

I don't see how they can rule otherwise, in order for Trump to even be considered to be removed from a ballot he must be convicted of a crime, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. A man is innocent till proven guilty. So he can't be removed from a ballot for an accusation. The law in question most likely doesn't even apply to him.

No, technically section 3 of the 14th amendment and depending on which state laws are cited in this case, being convicted isn't mentioned.

Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

And this is where you can find Colorado's laws they based their lawsuit on, although I don't expect the SCOTUS to agree.

coloradosun.com/2023/12/20/donald-trump-colorado-case-laws/

1-1-113. Neglect of duty and wrongful acts - procedures for adjudication of controversies - review by supreme court. (1) When any controversy arises between any official charged with any duty or function under this code and any candidate, or any officers or representatives of a political party, or any persons who have made nominations or when any eligible elector files a verified petition in a district court of competent jurisdiction alleging that a person charged with a duty under this code has committed or is about to commit a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act, after notice to the official which includes an opportunity to be heard, upon a finding of good cause, the district court shall issue an order requiring substantial compliance with the provisions of this code. The order shall require the person charged to forthwith perform the duty or to desist from the wrongful act or to forthwith show cause why the order should not be obeyed. The burden of proof is on the petitioner.
Colorado Revised Statutes 2023 Page 19 of 553 Uncertified Printout
(2) Repealed.
(3) The proceedings may be reviewed and finally adjudicated by the supreme court of this state, if either party makes application to the supreme court within three days after the district court proceedings are terminated, unless the supreme court, in its discretion, declines jurisdiction of the case. If the supreme court declines to review the proceedings, the decision of the district court shall be final and not subject to further appellate review.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in this part 1, the procedure specified in this section shall be the exclusive method for the adjudication of controversies arising from a breach or neglect of duty or other wrongful act that occurs prior to the day of an election.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the procedures specified in section 1-1.5-105 shall constitute the exclusive administrative remedy for a complaint arising under Title III of the federal "Help America Vote Act of 2002", Pub.L. 107-252.

1-4-1204. Names on ballots. (1) Not later than sixty days before the presidential primary election, the secretary of state shall certify the names and party affiliations of the candidates to be placed on any presidential primary election ballots. The only candidates whose names shall be placed on ballots for the election shall be those candidates who:
(a) Repealed.
(b) Are seeking the nomination for president of a political party as a bona fide candidate for president of the United States pursuant to political party rules and are affiliated with a major political party that received at least twenty percent of the votes cast by eligible electors in Colorado at the last presidential election; and
(c) Have submitted to the secretary, not later than eighty-five days before the date of the presidential primary election, a notarized candidate's statement of intent together with either a nonrefundable filing fee of five hundred dollars or a petition signed by at least five thousand eligible electors affiliated with the candidate's political party who reside in the state. Candidate petitions must meet the requirements of parts 8 and 9 of this article 4, as applicable.
(1.5) No later than the sixty-fifth day before the presidential primary election, a person whose name has been qualified to be placed on the ballot may file with the secretary of state an affidavit stating that the person is not a candidate for the office of the president of the United States and requesting that the person's name not be included in the list of names certified by the secretary of state in accordance with subsection (1) of this section. The secretary of state shall not include in the list the name of a person who timely files an affidavit.
(2) The names of candidates appearing on any presidential primary ballot must be in an order determined by lot. The secretary of state shall determine the method of drawing lots.
(3) Except as otherwise prohibited by political party rules, the state chairperson of a political party may request the secretary to provide a place on the primary ballot for electors who have no presidential candidate preference to register a vote to send a noncommitted delegate to the political party's national convention. To be valid, this request must be received by the secretary of state no later than seventy days before the presidential primary election.
(4) Any challenge to the listing of any candidate on the presidential primary election ballot must be made in writing and filed with the district court in accordance with section 1-1-113 (1) no later than five days after the filing deadline for candidates. Any such challenge must provide notice in a summary manner of an alleged impropriety that gives rise to the complaint. No later than five days after the challenge is filed, a hearing must be held at which time the district court shall hear the challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties.
Colorado Revised Statutes 2023 Page 152 of 553 Uncertified Printout
The district court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than forty-eight hours after the hearing. The party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. Any order entered by the district court may be reviewed in accordance with section 1-1-113 (3).