site banner

Colorado Supreme Court Thread

Link to the decision

I don't know to what extent there are established precedents for when a topic is worthy of a mega-thread, but this decision seems like a big deal to me with a lot to discuss, so I'm putting this thread here as a place for discussion. If nobody agrees then I guess they just won't comment.

12
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Colorado state court says Trump is ineligible based on this. He's an insurrectionist. And that ammendment mentions nothing about needing a conviction.

There are a number of issues there, most notably that Trump (uniquely among Presidents for decades if not centuries) has never been a member of Congress, an officer of the US, a member of any state legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any state.

Agreed. The 14th Ammendment is way too verbose and overspecifies who counts. By my reading Trump doesn't.

I suppose circa the late 1860s it was perfectly obvious who was a former insurrectionist and former officer, representative or appointee. So slightly overly specific language wasn't a problem.

I also suppose insurrection was so clear to them in its magnitude and unambiguous nature that Trump didn't do anything that counts. He didn't wage literal war against America. His tweeting to stay peaceful and go home don't count.