Colorado Decision Against Trump: A Grotesque Use Of Lawfare

Colorado Decision Against Trump: A Grotesque Use Of Lawfare

Colorado Decision Against Trump: A Grotesque Use Of Lawfare

This was a grotesque use of lawfare. Democrats and the Swamp are applauding the Colorado Supreme Court decision to keep President Donald Trump off the Colorado primary ballot this spring.

In a historic decision Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court barred Donald Trump from running in the state’s presidential primary after determining that he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

The 4-3 ruling marked the first time a court has kept a presidential candidate off the ballot under an 1868 provision of the Constitution that prevents insurrectionists from holding office. The ruling comes as courts consider similar cases in other states.

Oh, it’s historic alright. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment that the court used is as follows:

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, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The four judges, who were SO certain of their premise that they didn’t sign their names to it, decided that the 14th was not clearly written. Via Legal Insurrection:

If the language is clear and unambiguous, then we enforce it as written, and we need not turn to other tools of construction. However, if the provision’s language is reasonably susceptible of multiple interpretations, then it is ambiguous, and we may consider “the textual, structural, and historical evidence put forward by the parties,” and we will construe the provision “in light of the objective sought to be achieved and the mischief to be avoided.” 

Read the 14th Amendment again. Please point out the ambiguities in that text, I’ll wait. Oh, you can’t find any? Well, how about that? 

What is also grotesque about this lawfare is that the Colorado Supreme Court was so certain of their ruling that they, wait for it… STAYED the implementation of it until January 4. Why? So any appeals, would head to the United States Supreme Court. 

If that happens, and quite frankly, it should, Democrats such as Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff who were celebrating yesterday’s decision will clutch pearls for the rest of their lives. 

Three judges dissented: 

Chief Justice John Boatright argued that removing Trump from the ballot would require “an insurrection-related conviction.” Trump was impeached by the House for his role in the Jan. 6 attack, but he was acquitted by the Senate. And while he is facing a slew of federal and state criminal charges stemming from his efforts to subvert the election, he has never been criminally charged with committing or inciting an insurrection.

Justice Carlos Samour echoed Boatright’s concerns but went further, contending that the court was depriving Trump of due process.

“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” he wrote.

Justice Maria Berkenkotter also dissented, arguing that Colorado courts don’t have the authority to consider the question presented by those challenging Trump.

That’s correct. Trump was NEVER convicted of insurrection. Furthermore, Justice Samour is also correct in that this activist ruling deprives Trump, or anyone else for that matter, of our Constitutional right to DUE PROCESS. 

Keep in mind, the other lawsuits, filed for the very same reasons, completely failed. As I wrote in early November, even liberal Minnesota kicked that lawsuit to the curb. Yet, activist judges here in Colorado have decided that it is up to THEM and not us to decide who we can and cannot vote for. This is grotesque lawfare on steroids. Using legal measures to intimidate or stop an opponent from being on the ballot goes against everything this Republic stands for. 

But, you see, this is all about ‘protecting our democracy.’ Uh huh. Remember all the purple fingers in Iraq? They finally had the right to vote AND the ability to CHOOSE who they wanted to vote for. Yet here in Colorado, judges told us all yesterday that they want to make sure we DON’T have that choice. When the President of El Salvador is calling us out, you know this was a bad move for us on the international stage. 

For all those who are cheering this decision, you’d better think long and hard about that. This was lawfare at its most grotesque. The legal system was weaponized against someone you don’t like.

What happens when it’s weaponized against someone you DO like? 

Folks, whether you like Donald Trump or not, or plan to vote for or against him, this decision by a panel of judges was wrong. They kicked due process to the curb. Trump was never tried for treason and he was acquitted by the Senate regarding insurrection. Yet this panel of judges essentially declared him guilty in order to get to the ruling they wanted. 

That’s not LAW. That is politics. It is moves like that that led to the Boston Tea Party and eventually our American Revolution. Those four Colorado Supreme Court judges trampled all over our Constitution in order to ‘get Trump.’ 

There’s nothing to cheer about here. Nothing. 

Feature Photo Credit: Adobe Stock standard license, cropped 

Written by

  • SFC D says:

    “Due process? We don’t need no stinking due process!”

  • agimarc says:

    It also led to the Vigilance Committees, a larger threat to the lawfare aficionados than currently thought. Cheers –

  • Liz says:

    How many Democrats in office have given “aid or comfort to the enemies” of the US?
    Let’s start with leaving the Taliban billions of dollars of military kit.
    This could be fun!

  • Wfjag says:

    Just going to show that first and foremost, elected state court judges are politicians.

  • A reader says:

    According to the way the clause is written, you don’t have to be convicted. So there goes that argument…

    Oh and for those who say no one has been convicted for insurrection— it was in the comments of Greenwald’s tweet— that’s not technically true. According to the legal cases, sedition is the same thing. And Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meg’s, Enrique Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl, among others.

    Also consider: if the Supreme Court says it’s ok for Trump to be on the ballot, the same would go for a Democrat if they did the same thing. That’s unlikely to happen. True constitutional scholars, like Judge Luttig for instance, agree that Trump should be disqualified. So I wouldn’t go making any absolute statements, especially since the very letter and tenor of the amendment and the history of how it was written all point to the Colorado ruling being correct. Since so many Supreme Court judges are originalists, they’ll likely consider the history behind how the amendment was written in their ruling.

    • NavyEOD says:

      I do not believe your argument of being convicted is relevant. I can be accused of bank robbery, however if I am not convicted of the crime I go about my way. The Amendment does not have to state convicted, our constitution already provide for that, Innocent Until Proven Guilty!

      • Liz says:

        It is relevant for a banana republic.
        “This candidate is ineligible for the election ballot for trying to overthrow the republic!”
        “Is there a charge? A criminal conviction?”
        “No! We just decided this arbitrarily and in absentia”
        (“A Reader” nods sagely in the background)

      • GWB says:

        He doesn’t have to be convicted. But there needs to be a relevant finding of fact, as I mention below.

    • Cameron says:

      So when was this “insurrection”? Is it in the room with us right now?

    • Liz says:

      “According to the legal cases, sedition is the same thing. And Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meg’s, Enrique Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl, among others.”

      Is there any evidence they were doing this under a directive to do this from Trump?
      I mean actual evidence, not the TDS voice you hear in your head.

    • GWB says:

      I concur that there does not need to be a conviction for the Amendment to be applicable.
      However, for it to have legal standing there needs to be a finding of fact of some sort.

      The Congress took care of this, IIRC, for the civil war by declaring the states and their governments in revolt against the national gov’t and the Constitution. So, they declared, as a “fact”, that an insurrection was, in fact, occurring, and those people were guilty of it. There was also the self-evident fact of secession from the union – the governments voted for that, so those governments were guilty of that very act.

      Has there even been a resolution passed in Congress declaring Jan 6 an insurrection? Has there been a resolution passed stating Trump was guilty of being a part of it? A committee or panel is NOT what I’m talking about, but a declaration from the whole of Congress? If not, then the only other option is a legal finding somewhere – and a simple assertion of that idea by someone not actually debating that issue is NOT a valid legal finding.

      And, no, any honest reading of the 14th Amendment does not make the Colorado ruling correct. Several points in the “qualifications” fail, aside from the fact finding above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner