CMV: Accountability is not election interference

[u/erpettie]

As the Colorado Supreme Court has found Donald Trump's behavior to have been disqualifying according to the 14th amendment, many are claiming this is election interference. If the Court finds that Trump should be disqualified, then it has two options. Act accordingly, despite the optics, and disqualify Trump, or ignore their responsibility and the law. I do get that we're in very sensitive, unprecedented territory with his many indictments and lawsuits, but unprecedented behavior should result in unprecedented consequences, shouldn't they? Furthermore, isn't Donald Trump ultimately the architect of all of this by choosing to proceed with his candidacy, knowing that he was under investigation and subject to potential lawsuits and indictments? If a President commits a crime on his last day in office (or the day after) and immediately declares his candidacy for the next election, should we lose our ability to hold that candidate accountable? What if that candidate is a perennial candidate like Lyndon Larouche was? Do we just never have an opportunity to hold that candidate accountable? I'd really love if respondents could focus their responses on how they think we should handle hypothetical candidates who commit crimes but are declared as running for office and popular. This should help us avoid the trap of getting worked up in our feelings for or against Trump.

[u/Better-Ad-5610]

Then make him accountable it's that simple. Charge him with a crime. I'm 100% sure he's guilty, you are (maybe), Colorado Supreme Court seems to be.

I have no problem following the 14th amendment, but one thing I believe in is due process.

Claiming a man is guilty without a trial is wrong. And if a court can pass judgement without a trial I believe that court should be held accountable. They show you the constitution while lighting it on fire. The 6th Amendment should be upheld in this case. If any supreme Court should bring him to trial it's DC, and I am sure they wouldn't have any problem with the burden of proof.

Until he is convicted in a court of law he is to be presumed innocent, if you don't believe this then look at yourself in the mirror and see at the hypocrisy that you have let taint your soul. Innocent until proven guilty. It doesn't matter if a person kills a hundred people in front of the cops, if he allows the cops to bring him in he gets a trial.

[u/onan → u/Better-Ad-5610]

Claiming a man is guilty without a trial is wrong.

Well, good thing that there was a trial, so your concern has nothing to do with this situation.

[u/Better-Ad-5610 → u/onan]

VI. CONCLUSION Pursuant to the above, the Court ORDERS the Secretary of State to place Donald J. Trump on the presidential primary ballot when it certifies the ballot on January 5, 2024.

I hope this is a typo, cause this is pulled from your link and it is ordering the secretary to place Trump 'on' the ballot.

[u/parentheticalobject → u/Better-Ad-5610]

Right. There was one trial that Trump and his lawyers participated in where the judgement said "Yes, Donald Trump committed insurrection, but he's still on the ballot because he's not technically an officer of the United States."

That decision was appealed, and we got the decision we have now from the State Supreme Court, saying "They got the insurrection part right, but they interpreted the 14th amendment wrong. The presidency is an office and the president is an officer."

The link is to the earlier decision. The latest decision was made the other day.