The Colorado Department of State warned that it would be “a matter for the Courts” if the state’s Republican party withdrew from or ignored the results of the primary.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well, they can do their caucus thing as they like. As long as Trump will not appear on the ballot, I’m fine with it.

    The courts decision is a bit wonky, though. I don’t consider “being the candidate for party X” an “office, civil or military, of the United States”, so banning him from the primaries is (IMHO) unwarranted. On the other hand, the court admits that Trumps actions are valid reasons to invoke A14, so removing him from the ballot papers for November would be justified. And that is the only place that counts.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      If by the 14th he is not eligible for the presidency outside of 2/3rds of Congress voting to waive that, then why the fuck should he be on the ballot? It’s pointless.

      That’s like saying I’m banned from a venue but keeping me from getting in line to enter is unfair and unwarranted.

      Do you hear yourself? I guess you think you know better than the high courts lmao

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        why the fuck should he be on the ballot?

        Because the Republicans should be able to do whatever they want in their candidate selection process, all the way up to and including running a disqualified candidate. It’s their club and they can run it however they like.

    • lingh0e@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Luckily for you, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch already ruled on that precise topic when he was a Colorado judge. A foreign born man who had become a US citizen, a person who is ineligible by default, still insisted he should have the right to run for president even if he can’t take office.

      Gorsuch ruled that the state had a responsibility to prevent anyone who is ineligible for office from even being allowed on the ballot.

      His decision was even cited in Trumps ruling.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        He didn’t actually rule on this. There was no question of eligibility in that case, it was just whether being ineligible for the position gave the state the right to block him from the ballot. This one will hinge on whether or not the amendment applies to trump. And based on the wording of the amendment, unfortunately, they have multiple ways to reasonably argue it does not, and we all know the conservative majority will rule he is eligible.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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

          Can’t hold any office. Pretty plain.