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.
All concurring Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court must be prosecuted for INSURRECTION, partial, fraudulent and malicious adjudication, and attempted election fraud, vote fraud, election corruption, and vote rigging.
LOL.
The Colorado court ruled he can’t be president and thus can’t be on the ballot. The “he can’t be president” part is not moot even if he stays on the ballot due to a technicality. The Supremes will be aware of this and will not consider the case moot. They will also realize this case is nothing close to Bush v. Gore because it doesn’t decide who becomes President after the election has happened, but simply restores the people’s right to vote for their favored candidate. Any comparison to Bush v. Gore is attenuated to the point of irrelevance. So my prediction is they will grant review and resolve the dispute on the merits.
I don’t see how this is moot.
The Secretary of State said Trump would be off the ballot if the Court does not take the case up. If that happens after January 5, she could say the original ballots are no longer valid and issue new ones without Trump.
In addition, the same issue is likely to arise in the general election. When that is the case, the issue is not moot.
What Colorado has done is inexcusable. I sincerely hope they get torn into tiny, microspopic little shreds in higher courts, and that it sets the absolute mother of all precedents. Personal opinion as law should not be a thing in a free society, and all of these judges should be condemned. I’d love it if they all resigned, but that is magical thinking. Thanks, Obama. Thanks a lot. If I could, I would take back my votes for you in 2008 1,000x over.
I’ve said it before, but someday, older and foolish liberals will thank their lucky stars for the Trump appointments, as people from the 60s era are the most binary and linear thinkers on the face of the earth in the 21st century. Time will show them that sense is what preserves their delusions in a society where the truly smart among us carry everyone else, including their sad a****.
This is absolutely upside-down world, and the dems are not on your side, they are not your friends. They will lie, cheat, and steal; decide if you are that big a rube, and do the right thing if your personal embarrassment at supporting an actual, 21st century regime doesn’t stop you in your tracks because of the shame that nobody actually cares about beyond the confines of your mind. People who are suffering at present happen to care a great deal due to your negligence and irresponsibility, and in that matter over the past two decades, you are culpable. 🙄
I am not a Donald Trump fan. I make no bones about saying so. Yet, I end defending him constantly. I cannot fathom why this guy so irritates people to the point of insanity. Trump derangement syndrome is a real condition, I have seen it first hand.
I truly hope the Supreme Court picks this case up. For me, I am trying to understand how the Colorado State Supreme Court could make this finding. I wonder if it is from the effect of the legal marijuana. I am still trying to wrap my head around the idea he is excluded off a ballot when he has not been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted. Not charged or convicted for anyone else either. If nobody has been charged nor convicted after three years, just maybe it is not an insurrection.
This has the feeling of a star chamber.
If the Colorado wants this case to go moot, they should have never taken it up. The bigger problem is not that it get overturned, which I believe it will, but if it goes moot, Trump was found to be an insurrectionist when he was never convicted. That cannot be allowed to stand for no other reason but in the interest of Justice. He not only deserves his day in court, but deserves to defend his name. That would be taken away if this goes moot.
That is bad precedent.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t require that the person be “charged with insurrection” much less “convicted.” It requires only that the person “engaged in” insurrection. There was a 5-day trial in CO about that exact question, and Trump lost.
It was NOT decided by Congress or pursuant to an enforcement mechanism created by Congress. End of story. Your argument is like pretending that the Governor of Colorado could declare war against some country.
It is written plain as day into the Constitution and does not say that Congress has to pass a law to have it take effect. That would be absurd to have a provision of the Constitution that could be nullified just by Congress doing nothing.
You are a moron Sammy
13A, Section 1——>Section 2 ——>18 USC 77
14A Section 3—->section 5——> 18 USC 2383
24A Section 1——Section 2——> 53 USC 10306
15A Section 1——-Section 2——>52 USC 10101
JT, your discussion is precisely what is wrong with the law. You talk in circles and it sounds like the most important issue in all of this is how Jurists save their hides. To hell with them. How about some honest application of the law? What about the people and their constitutional rights?
The “leaders” don’t care about the constitution and are chipping away at our rights more everyday. If there was any justice in this country, that treasonous POS in the white house would at the very least be in prison, if not already hung!!!
An honest application of the law would have Trump be ineligible for any office. Remember Trump was the one who almost succeeded in installing himself as an unelected president.
I’d prefer jail for them….conspiracy is a crime….even for judges
Amen to that and I will not be anonymous. I’m not going to hide because my views don’t side with tyrants and the mentally weak and deranged!
FK EM!!!!
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.
In a not too distant era, good men would have challenged evil. Alas, that era is no longer our reality
Violent crime is exceedingly high in the US, the US Southern Border is non-existent, allowing carriers of infectious diseases to waltz into our once vaccinated nation, and animals in the people of Hamas/Gaza committed sexual violence of unimaginable magnitude, while American Leftists parade for the murder of Jews. Our culture has collapsed. Like with the 2020 rigged election, SCOTUS will say nothing because they see/hear nothing. This is why God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, to give men hope that Good exists in spite a fallen world.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.
– John Stuart Mill
inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, 1867
‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7
A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html
Estovir,
Well said.
Looking at the kind of evil that has gripped part of the country is truly disturbing.
The woke leftists in their desire to sexualize and groom children, expose them to pornography, mutilate them. Their attempts to roll back women’s rights. Their attempts to roll back all the hard work of the 1960s Civil Rights efforts. Their support for a terrorist group while chanting “From river, to sea,” and the death of all Jews and the violent end of Israel.
Evil. Truly evil.
The phrase is *eke out, not *eek out. C’mon, man!
“Currently, Colorado is an outlier.” Excuse me? Outlier? How about some honest discussion JT?
Michigan did not rule on the evidence, they said it wasn’t ripe to rule yet. Over 1,000 people stormed the Capitol with the express purpose of keeping trump in power. They had a plan that was a dumpster plan of a plan, but what do you expect from trump. Pence did not go along with the plan even under threat of being hung on a make shift gallows. This is the definition of insurrection. They lost. In other countries when an insurrection fails the insurrectionists are typically hung or shot or clubbed to death. The worst that happened here is several years in prison for the ring leaders, sans trump who still has his day in court.
You all know this is true, but for you it is just the only way you can stay in power, prevent people from voting or use whatever procedural grounds you can foist on us. You failed, give it up. Vote and accept the results.
Bob, everything you stated is categorically false.
And you have just proven me correct in the nutty thinking of trump supporters.
Bob you are full of lies. Nothing you wrote is backed up by facts
It was not a insurrection. It was a protest gone bad into a riot.
Your TDS is showing. Get help.
The purpose of the “protest turned riot” was to keep trump in power. He lost, the is the definition of an insurrection. How about 4 people being convicted of Seditious Conspiracy? Just because they failed does not mean they did not try.
Trying to keep Trump in power is not the definition of an insurrection. Al Gore tried to keep Al Gore in power and no one said he was an insurrectionist. Further, your characterization is not accurate. Trump sought to delay certification in order to allow investigation of some state elections. In the past, some Democrats have objected to certification of electoral votes.
strange insurrection when no one has been charged with carrying a firearm or knife. I have watched thousands of leftist attacking the US Supreme court and district courts with no punishment. The 14th amendment was meant to prevent Confederates who had served in the US congress and then joined in a real insurrection in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and the people in the insurrection used millions of rifles and thousands of artillery pieces to fight the Federal government. Now that was an insurrection. The dayiy riots against the Federal court house in Oregon had more violence than Jan 6.
“strange insurrection when no one has been charged with carrying a firearm or knife. ”
BS. Multiple people have not only been charged with carrying firearms on J6 but have been convicted. You can easily find them in the DOJ’s Capitol Breach database: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Just search on “firearm” and “weapon.”
Who has been charged with carrying a gun into the Capitol building?
The Court of Claims judge in Michigan did discuss the merits of the challenge to Trump and opined that it was a political question.
I’ll take it! (Moot until after the 2024 Election), any Yardage toward the Goal Post is better than no Yardage at all. 🏈
The Rule of Law has become the Game of Thrones. At least GOT has dragons!
Couldn’t Biden be removed from ballots until the impeachment inquiry has concluded? It’s sad, disgusting and disgraceful to think of all the Americans who gave up life and body to protect the republic against the likes of the enemy in our midst.
Insurrection is the key word, Cletus.
There would of have been an insurrection in the first place, moron.
There was one, attempting to prevent the certification of the EC vote and thereby the peaceful transfer of power.
When laws are violated in a state such as Colorado by their Supreme Court, we are definitely in degradation of our liberties. It seems to put public opinion and mob rule over the laws of the land. The reckoning will be paid by future generations — seems that Mel Gibson’s movie Mad Max is coming to a community near each of us sooner than expected!
What law did the Colorado Supreme Court violate?
So court just does like them, you are removed. Has Trump been found guilt of something?
How about its violation of section 5 of the 14th Amendment which simply and concisely state unequivocally that:
“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
This is absolutely clear; only Congress has the authority to enforce all other sections, including section 3, of the 4th amendment. No court, including SCOTUS can lawfully enforce any provision of the 14th. That wrests exclusively with Congress under the auspices of “appropriate legislation.” SCOTUS could rule on the constitutionality or “appropriateness” of such legislation but it (nor any other court) has authority to impose an order in place of such legislation.
How can a de jure opinion be a violation of law?
It is an opinion. What in the heck are you talking about? What a strange world we would be in an appellate judge could be arrested for issuing an opinion!
No one said, at least I didn’t, anything about arresting any Judge. Nevertheless, this ruling does violate the law. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. The CO ruling and concomitant order that Trump be penalized in accordance with section 3 of the 14th is a clear violation of section 5 — which is the law the law of the land. In this, the court was guilty of usurping the authority of Congress, which, it seems to me, is a much “insurrectionist”, with respect to the at least one Constitutionally assigned function of Congress, as anything Trump has been accused of.
Very odd that my post (above) came up as “Anonymous” since I posted it as JibberJabber – does this happen often? Happen to anyone else?
When laws are violated in a state such as Colorado by their Supreme Court, we are definitely in degradation of our liberties. It seems to put public opinion and mob rule over the laws of the land. The reckoning will be paid by future generations — seems that Mel Gibson’s movie Mad Max is coming to a community near each of us sooner than we expected!
The prog/left are counting on any “hail Mary” passes at which they may cling.
I can’t believe we are this naive and delusional, especially about how our government is assembled and operated, which should be a primary educational requirement in grade school!
Colorado’s Supreme Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to decide who can or cannot be placed on the ballots of Colorado’s electors, because it is not a matter of law, because the process for electing the President and Vice President are established unalterably by Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, even the 12th amendment is on shaky ground which is why they kept everything the same, including the number of persons which would be considered by the States in Congress, by Article 2 Section 1, the top 5 persons on the aggregate list of the electors choices are considered, and by the 12th amendment top 3 on the aggregate list for President and the top 2 on the aggregate list for Vice President! But the selection process proceeds the same in both cases, the top candidates are considered by the States in Congress and the States determine a choice by a vote of the States, 1 vote per State, and a majority of the States is necessary to the choice.
The limits of the State’s authority is to appoint the electors for their State, a number which is equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives each State “may” be entitled in the congress, the appointments must be made by the State Legislature which must be an exact representation of the State’s population, “The People in their Collective Capacity” assembled as “The State’s Most Numerous Legislative Branch”’ which makes the appointment of the electors an act of all the people of the State, because the Most Numerous Legislative Branch is proportional to the demographic diversity of the State, and the Electors choices are the the choices of all the People of the country, because the electors are an exact duplication of the representatives in Congress, which is an exact representation of all the people of the country making the electors choices proportionally reflective of the People of each States choices, making the selection of the President and Vice President an act of the People in their Collective Capacity, all the people!
No law, then there is no jurisdiction to decide any aspect of any invalid law, and this goes doubly for the Federal Supreme Court acting under appellate jurisdiction, there is no law, then there can be no petition for redress, and therefore no hearing or decision.
If you doubt my assessment, cite the clauses of the Constitution of the United States which established the Electoral College as a competitive electoral process!
You trump supporters are nuts. You yell and scream for states rights. Put Hillary in jail, if they are arrested they are guilty. and on and on it goes. Now that your guy has been caught, no states don’t have jurisdiction, what classified documents? The phone call asking for 12,000 votes was perfect. And on and on it goes.
States rights? States rights for me but not for thee. Just like your mommies for liberty. Should be called threesome for me but not for thee.
Get a grip, look in the mirror and grow up.
SCOTUS will probably just sit on it until other cases come in from other states, then they can hear a consolidated case on the merits.
They may have escaped their decision but the Colorado Supreme Court can’t escape it’s new reputation as the Bud Light of courts.
They need clown costumes instead of black robes when they sit at bench.
The Ivy League universities are turning out defective products these days.
Perhaps all of the precedents of this court should be cited with a warning asterisk: * Clown Court.
True or False: A majority of the Colorado Supreme Court attended Ivy League schools?
(FALSE). Do you have a problem with the University of Denver, too?
He has a problem with anyone who disagrees with him or is a member of a group he dislikes.
The 3 justices who dissented went to Denver. The 4 in the majority were Ivy League, Yale, Harvard, Penn and Virginia. As I said, the Ivy League is turning out poor product these days.
https://amac.us/newsline/society/the-hidden-truth-colorado-court-ruling-reveals-about-trump-derangement-syndrome
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/19/the-colorado-supreme-court-4-3-decision-is-pure-nonsense-and-can-be-laughed-at-they-even-admit-it-on-page-9/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-colorado-supreme-court-4-3-decision-is-pure-nonsense-and-can-be-laughed-at-they-even-admit-it-on-page-9&lctg=57791102
The Colorado Supreme Court left themselves an out anyway. See page 9, top paragraph, of the ruling.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
“Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.”