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.

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.

    • 𝔇𝔦𝔬
      5124·
      11 months ago

      … The, “terrorists” From an England perspective, are the Democrats removing a presidential candidate over empty nothings. He hasn’t been actually convicted and yet, this is happening.

      Slippery slope, etc. etc.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
        421·
        11 months ago

        They’re following the specific language of the 14th amendment. That’s terrorism now? It actually doesn’t say he needs to be convicted of any insurrection – it says that he needs to have participated in an insurrection. And, it provides a specific check and balance (two-thirds vote in congress) if a court is attempting to keep him off the ballot improperly.

        It sounds like we have a difference of factual understanding of what happened on January 6th. Where are you getting “empty nothings”? I saw this is why I’m saying it wasn’t nothing.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        30·
        11 months ago

        1. Not Democrats. Colorado supreme court. The plaintiffs in the case are actually Republican primary voters.

        2. He isn’t a presidential candidate yet. He’s a candidate for the Republican presidential candidate

        3. Not empty nothings, Congressional investigations show there was an insurrection, and that some groups were specifically planning for this day.

        4. The 14th amendment by design does not require a conviction, as it was made to bar confederates. This clause has only been applied in situations without convictions, actually.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        11 months ago

        Maybe you need to go read the 14th amendment and also the rulings.

        The legal process was followed. The courts decided. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

        I didn’t like it when the SCOTUS said to stop counting and give the election to Bush.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        18·
        11 months ago

        That’s not an England perspective. It’s a moron perspective. I’m betting there are quite a few people in England who are at least a little less idiotic.

      • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
        10·
        11 months ago

        Colorado has literally done exactly this before to keep a non-natural born citizen off the ballot, and none other than Judge Gorsuch decided that case. In his ruling he wrote that the state has a right to conduct their elections in a way to ensure their stability and in accordance with their laws. Thomas ruled the same way in Bish v Gore, and the SC ruled the same way while overturning key provisions in the Voting Rights Act.

        I wonder what the difference is this time that would make conservatives do a full reverse and say states cannot control their own elections?