The office of Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswald issued a statement that, since the appeal was filed with the Supreme Court, Trump’s name will remain on the ballot “unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.” That clause or provision from the opinion may offer a welcomed escape option for both the Supreme Court and the state.
The timing question could have an interesting impact on the case. It could avoid a review by the Supreme Court by effectively mooting the case if the Supreme Court simply lets the clock run past January 5, 2024. The question is whether the Court would see a need to review the matter if no change would occur to the ballot itself.
The Colorado Secretary of State issued a press release that stated in part:
“The Colorado Republican Party has appealed the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson v. Griswold to the U.S. Supreme Court. With the appeal filed, Donald Trump will be included as a candidate on Colorado’s 2024 Presidential Primary Ballot when certification occurs on Jan. 5, 2024, unless the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take the case or otherwise affirms the Colorado Supreme Court ruling.”
The Supreme Court should still take the case and reject the Colorado decision. This issue will only repeat itself in the general election and challengers are seeking additional judges or courts to embrace this dangerous theory. Currently, Colorado is an outlier. However, the Secretary of State in Maine has been as outspoken as Griswald on what she views as an “insurrection” on January 6th.
It is clear why challengers saw Democrat Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows as the most likely to endorse their theory. Bellows has already declared that “The Jan 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election… The insurrectionists failed, and democracy prevailed.” A year after the riot, Bellows was still denouncing what she called “the violent insurrection.”
Colorado may prefer to wait for states like Maine to join the cause rather than leave the state as the outlier. Moreover, it is clear to many of us that Colorado will lose before the Supreme Court if push comes to shove. This would remove the shove if the Court simply allows for review to continue beyond the certification on January 5th.
While the four Colorado justices have been lionized by pundits and the media, the optics could take a bad turn if liberal justices joined conservatives in setting aside this decision. Even on an all Democratically-appointed court, the majority was only able to eek out a 4-3 decision with three justices rejecting this novel theory.
It is hard to portray yourself as the defender of democracy by preventing citizens from voting for the current frontrunner for the presidency. It is even more difficult when various states, including Democratic jurists and justices, reject this radical effort.
The Secretary of State could have sought to lift the limitation on a pending review as barring removal. There was no effort to get the justices to reconsider that part of the ruling. Yet, Griswald could have argued that, once Trump is found to be an insurrectionalist under the Fourteenth Amendment, her office should not be compelled to include his name. After all, the office is not an intermediate court and it has a ruling that Trump is disqualified as a matter of law.
It appears, however, that Griswald accepts this condition that Trump will remain on the ballot unless the Court declines review (which seems unlikely) or affirms the Colorado Supreme Court (which seems even more unlikely).
The question is whether Griswald herself will seek to have the matter declared as moot after January 5th. She can argue that, while the same objections could be raised for the balloting for the general election, it is pure conjecture that Trump will win the primary despite every poll showing an overwhelming lead. She could then avoid a likely reversal but arguing that there is no change on the balloting and thus no injury to the Colorado GOP.
The Colorado GOP is arguing that it is being denied the constitutionally protected right to association due to the removal. Once again, even that right would be effectively protected by a default retention of Trump on the ballot.
The mootness argument, therefore, may hold great appeal for Griswald. It may also appeal to some justices who would like this cup to pass from their lips. Some like Chief Justice John Roberts are incrementalists who prefer to avoid divisive issues when possible. The lasting legacy of Bush v. Gore still haunts the Court decades after its issuance.
An exit ramp offered by a mootness argument might be an irresistible temptation for Roberts as well as the three liberal justices. Others like Justice Bret Kavanaugh could also agree that the Court can wait to see if this matter will arise again before the general election.
For many of us, the mooting of the issue would be a bitter pill since we have long argued for a final rejection on this pernicious legal theory. Yet, with states like Maine, this is not the only horse in the race if it is stopped at the gates.
Colorado Communist have gone Full Red Guard.
The Colorado Sec of state is as corrupt as any in the whole US and has been from the start she is a crook a liar and crooked as a snake.
@Turley
Please look at 18 USC 595.
Should that apply to the Main Sec of State?
Or the justices in CO?
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
-G
As for Maine, Turley has new piece at “The Hill”.
The problem I see is that the demokkrats want “their democracy” as a replacement for our Constitutional Republic and do wahtever it takes to “protect” it.
“Democracy is the road to socialism”— marx
“The goal of socialism is communism”— the other uncle joe (stalin)
In Trump’s MaL documents case, his latest filing says that he may use CIPA to introduce some of the classified evidence at trial. Why would he claim that the evidence is classified if he declassified all of it?
14.3 is “self-executing,” alleges the Left.
What do you call a provision that is so “self-executing” that it needs to be executed by politically motivated SoS’s and judges?
Gibberish.
You assume that they’re politically motivated rather than motivated by their oath to uphold the Constitution.
And it’s a self-executing provision of the Constitution in the same way that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is self-executing, which led to all those lawsuits about whether Obama was a natural born citizen. Self-executing doesn’t imply that the courts are not involved. It means that the provision is “constitutionally automatic whenever its terms are satisfied” (quoting Baude, William, and Michael Stokes Paulsen. “The Sweep and Force of Section Three.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 172 (forthcoming)). So the legal questions are: is he an officer under 14A s3, and did he engage in insurrection?
Wrong-o, turd layer. Article 2 does not have an enforcement clause.
Also, its not “self executing”. It requires action. You said so yourself. So stupid.
Troll^^^^^^
“. . . whenever its terms are satisfied”
And therein lies the rub.
What is the legal process by which an individual is found guilty of the *crime* of “insurrection?” See 5A and 6A.
No Amendment or Clause exists in isolation. Rights are a unity.
And the Left is not free to skip criminal due process, and jump to penalty.
Maine’s SoS removed Trump from the ballot.
So she is judge, jury, and executioner. Whatever you want to call it, that is not due process or the rule of law. That is unlimited power in the hands of a petty bureaucrat.
All justices appointed by a Democrat.
The three justices who dissented from the looney decision went to the University of Denver.
The four in the majority were Ivy League, Yale, Harvard, Penn and Virginia.
The Ivy League is turning out very poor product these days. Don’t hire. Don’t appoint. Don’t associate.
https://amac.us/newsline/society/the-hidden-truth-colorado-court-ruling-reveals-about-trump-derangement-syndrome
If you’re at all interested in the complex and surprisingly divisive process of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, I highly recommend:
“Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted?” By Forrest McDonald (Georgia Journal Of Southern Legal History Vol. I, No. I, Spring/Summer 1991) https://kipdf.com/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted_5ac9fe111723dd2ed8e1f0fa.html
The article is nicely thorough history, despite its brevity, of the events (historical, political and legal) leading up to and during the ratification of the 14th Amendment; which even at that time was heavily charged with rancor and widespread disagreement regarding its necessity, legitimacy and legality.
McDonald concludes:
“… the Fourteenth Amendment was never constitutionally ratified, even if it had been constitutionally proposed. The question now becomes, so what? The critics of the 1950s and 1960s, cited earlier, called for the Supreme Court to rule that it was, not a part of the Constitution. To the certain objection that such a ruling would overturn a huge body of judicial precedent, they pointed out that the Court had, in Erie v. Tompkins (1938), overturned its earlier ruling in Swift v. Tyson (1842) and with it nearly a century of case law, and that to right a long-standing wrong was more important than precedent. Perhaps. Even so, though no one ever became rich by predicting what the Supreme Court would do from one generation to another, it seems safe to predict that the Fourteenth Amendment is here to stay, despite its origins. It behooves us, however, to be aware of the Fourteenth’s history, lest similar irregularities should surround another amendment in the future.”
My apologies. While the link posted above does provide a PDF of the 1991 “Georgia Journal Of Southern Legal History” article it’s cut at the end of page eight and omits the conclusion. You can, however, find a 2014 reprint which includes the conclusion here http://tinyurl.com/8bvsy626
Sammy
Your total omission and failure to recognize the Clinton/Obama conspiracy to immediately subvert a sitting duly elected President Trump negates any factual argument you may attempt to make. There’s plenty of evidence of election fraud, it was death by a thousand cuts. Corruption doesn’t serve anyone and we all know the swamp is beyond repair.
Sammy
I think after four years of subversion and sedition unleashed on Donald Trump by the left and aided by the corrupt establishment that Trump had every right to view the 2020 election as rigged. 75 Million voters would agree, mail in ballots, unelected officials circumventing State laws, COVID lies, lawfare, and so much more. Trump’s constitutional lawyers believe as I do, the election was rigged. I don’t think his attempt to retain office and expose how corrupt our government has become was an insurrection. Cleaning out corruption is not overthrowing the government, it’s giving it an enema.
Anyone can believe the 2020 election was rigged, but they are still factually wrong. Trumps coup was not about corruption at all, it was about rejecting the results of an election.
Trump committed no coup, attempted or otherwise, nor did he foment an insurrection.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it, it won’t make it true.
The federal appeals court in DC has just ruled again that Trump is not immune from a civil lawsuit, this one brought by police officers related to his conduct on Jan. 6 while President. Since the DCCA rules that he’s not immune to civil suits, it would be surprising if they rule that he’s immune to a criminal suit.
Why is it the Leftist trolls on here cry about the meaning of the Constitution while their only true use for it is as toilet paper?
It’s hard to read some of this idiotic drivel, Svelaz.
You think Trump trying to install himself as an unelected president is respecting the Constitution?
There is no mootness about it. Maine has just followed Colorado in removing President Trump from the ballot. I say we should remove all democrats from all federal offices in every RED state and see how they like it.