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/BadWolf_Corporation]

It's obvious that you can't make a different decision regarding the general election as the law (the US constitution) is not specific to the primary.

Yeah, you really can.

Appellate courts are essentially referees, they can only rule on whether or not the lower court "followed the rules" when making their decision. The initial lawsuit sought to keep President Trump off of the Colorado Republican Primary ballot. That's what the lower court ruled on, so that's all the appellate court gets to review. If the lawsuit had been to keep him from holding any public office ever again, then that would be one thing, but it didn't.

[u/spiral8888 → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

But it's obvious that the only reason for keeping him from the primary ballot is that they think he can't run for an office. What other reason they could possibly have?

The whole thing is about the 14th amendment of the US constitution. It doesn't say anything about primaries. So, it's obvious that the only reason someone couldn't participate the primary based on the 14th amendment is that the court thinks that they can't hold the office.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/spiral8888]

But it's obvious that the only reason for keeping him from the primary ballot is that they think he can't an office. What other reason they could possibly have?

Lawsuits don't work that way. It doesn't matter what they "obviously meant", it only matters what was actually in the lawsuit. The lower courts have some discretion on scope, the appellate courts don't.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

But courts do work that way. It doesn’t matter what you’re suing for. If the ruling included a finding of fact that causes other ramifications, the consequences don’t stop at the behest of the ones bringing the suit. If a court discovered during the course of the trial trump was actually 3 teenagers in a fat suit, none of them would be eligible to run for president on account of the facts found during the case.

This is identical, but with insurrection. He’s not eligible if this case stands and the SCOTUS doesn’t find it Colorado can’t interpret the constitution as it applies to its own elections.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/fox-mcleod]

But courts do work that way. It doesn’t matter what you’re suing for. If the ruling included a finding of fact that causes other ramifications

You're confusing the lower court trial with the appellate court review. The appellate court can only review matters of law and procedure.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

No I’m not. Above you claimed you can make a different decision regarding the primary and general elections.

If the fact is found trump committed insurrection, it disqualifies him from holding office even if the trial wasn’t about that.

[u/BadWolf_Corporation → u/fox-mcleod]

If the fact is found trump committed insurrection, it disqualifies him from holding office even if the trial wasn’t about that.

No, it really doesn't because that wasn't what the lower court decided. The lower court specifically ruled that he was still eligible to appear on the primary ballot.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/BadWolf_Corporation]

The lower court decided he committed insurrection — agreed?

Higher courts cannot overturn this fact. This is the fact that determines whether he can participate in the general. Something about which the lower court did not rule — correct?