We've seen a lot of reaction to the Colorado Supreme Court decision to boot former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot, including from Trump's fellow candidates for the GOP nomination. The Trump team blasted the decision. Even Chris Christie — not a fan of Trump — said he disagreed in principle with taking away the right of the people to choose. Vivek Ramaswamy said he would remove his name from the ballot if Trump was not added back on. READ MORE: Trump Team Blasts Political and 'Deeply Undemocratic' Colorado Decision Taking Away Rights of Voters WATCH: Even Chris Christie Is Casting the Stink Eye on Court Keeping Trump off Ballot I wrote about how George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley called it "anti-democratic." SEE: Jonathan Turley Rips Apart the Colorado Decision Booting Trump Off the Ballot The Colorado Republicans said they would try to get around all this by going to a caucus process, as my colleague Jerry Wilson noted and my colleague Jennifer Van Laar further explained. READ MORE: Ron DeSantis Joins Calls Against Donald Trump’s Removal From Colorado Primary Ballot Even though the Colorado Supreme Court justices were all appointed by Democratic governors, it was still a 4-3 decision. The decision has been stayed pending an appeal to SCOTUS by Jan. 4, with the primary deadline to have the names in being Jan. 5. There were three written dissents in the case, but the dissent that is catching everyone's eye is the dissent from Justice Carlos Samour. Some have termed it a "roadmap" for the SCOTUS to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court. Samour excoriated the majority for a decision that "flies in the face of the due process doctrine.”
So if Trump hasn't been charged, much less convicted, under that statute that applies, he cannot be removed on this basis, according to Samour. There are other questions about whether or not this provision would even apply to Trump as the president — the trial court was of the opinion it did not apply to him. But you don't have to get to that if they haven't even charged him under 18 U.S.C § 2383, according to Samour. Colorado lawyer "Jarvis" laid out an analysis of Samour's opinion in an interesting thread you can read that our friends at our sister site Twitchy noted. He, too, thinks that this will be where SCOTUS jumps off from when they make their decision on the matter.
Samour also explained it was a recipe for chaos if you went down the road the majority was pursuing.
We'll find out shortly whether the Supreme Court takes it up, but Samour's dissent makes far more sense than the decision by the majority that steals the right of millions to elect the candidate of their choice. |
No comments:
Post a Comment