Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   smellsofbikes (smellsofbikes@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:25:46 JST smellsofbikes

   Any y'all know more about law than I do: what happens if the supreme court of the united states refuses to hear the appeal of the colorado 14th amendment decision? Does it then only hold for Colorado and any other states that also rule that way? Because that seems a more likely avoidance step than actually trying to prove that the colorado judge who ruled that it was a fact of law that Trump engaged in insurrection, was wrong about that ruling.

   • Embed this notice
     Kit Rhett Aultman (roadriverrail@signs.codes)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 11:25:44 JST Kit Rhett Aultman

     in reply to

     @smellsofbikes It was a state court, so a refusal of the appeal keeps the scope of the ruling to the state. Generally you have to go through a circuit court before you can go to the SCOTUS, but possibly not in a case like this one.

   • Embed this notice
     Kit Rhett Aultman (roadriverrail@signs.codes)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 12:24:05 JST Kit Rhett Aultman

     in reply to

     • Dazzling Urbanite

     @apressler @smellsofbikes Honestly, I'm with you, even if I like seeing Trump get kicked around. I'm really unsure what findings of fact were used here. I just haven't had time to do the reading I need to. Because I definitely don't want the standard to be a vague one.

   • Embed this notice
     Dazzling Urbanite (apressler@urbanists.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Dec-2023 12:24:06 JST Dazzling Urbanite

     in reply to

     @smellsofbikes

     I think you are correct that refusal to take it up means only that he’s off the CO ballot, but that other cases are free to go forward.

     I think they are likely to strike it down saying either congress has to declare him ineligible OR he needs to be convicted in a criminal trial like other Jan6ers have been.

     I’d be OK with a conviction standard, because I don’t want Texas courts to start banning candidates based on whatever BS Texas can dream up: gun control = sedition. Yeeha!

   • Embed this notice
     Kit Rhett Aultman (roadriverrail@signs.codes)'s status on Thursday, 21-Dec-2023 00:04:56 JST Kit Rhett Aultman

     in reply to

     • Dazzling Urbanite

     @apressler @smellsofbikes Oh, yeah, I think they were just responding to my statement about not knowing what the finding of facts in this case was.

   • Embed this notice
     Dazzling Urbanite (apressler@urbanists.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Dec-2023 00:04:58 JST Dazzling Urbanite

     in reply to

     • Kit Rhett Aultman

     @smellsofbikes @roadriverrail
     I agree any reasonable court would find the facts show Trump engaged in insurrection, I just no longer trust the courts to be reasonable. I would be satisfied with a standard of criminal conviction or act of congress.

   • Embed this notice
     smellsofbikes (smellsofbikes@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 21-Dec-2023 00:04:59 JST smellsofbikes

     in reply to

     • Kit Rhett Aultman
     • Dazzling Urbanite

     @roadriverrail @apressler one interesting thing is that all seven judges agreed with the facts, but three disagreed about procedural issues.