Michigan Keeps Trump on Primary Ballot – In your Face Colorado!
In a significant legal development with far-reaching implications for the 2024 presidential election, the Michigan Supreme Court has decided to keep former President Donald Trump on the state’s primary ballot. This decision stands in stark contrast to a recent ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court, which had removed Trump from its ballot in base on his alleged involvement in the January 6 Capitol protest, accusing him of “insurrection.”
The Michigan Supreme Court’s rejection of the case to remove Trump was grounded in procedural and legal technicalities specific to Michigan law. A pivotal point in their decision was the absence of a Michigan law equivalent to that in Colorado, which requires presidential candidates to affirm their legal qualifications.
In her analysis, Justice Elizabeth Welch from Michigan elucidated this crucial difference. She noted, “The anti-Trump challengers have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office.” This emphasis on state-specific legal frameworks was central to Michigan’s decision.
Further, the Michigan court’s approach was significantly procedural. The state’s Court of Claims judge, in the initial stages of the lawsuit, opined that Michigan law does not empower election officials to vet the eligibility of presidential primary candidates.
This perspective was subsequently upheld by higher courts. The judge’s assertion that the case posed a political question beyond the purview of the judiciary also played a role in its dismissal. The Michigan Court of Appeals reinforced this view, stating, “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”
This procedural stance contrasts with Colorado, where the courts engaged more directly with the substantive issues at hand, particularly Trump’s alleged involvement in the January 6 insurrection and its implications under the U.S. Constitution’s “insurrectionist ban”.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified after the Civil War, stipulates that officials who swear to uphold the Constitution and then engage in insurrection are barred from holding future office. This amendment, historically used to prevent Confederates from returning to federal office, has rarely been invoked in modern times and its applicability to the presidency remains a legal gray area – especially in light of who is accusing Trump of “insurrection” and the fact that he has been convicted of nothing.
Justice Welch, in her writing, also noted the potential for future legal battles, stating, “I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ ruling on this issue, which still allows appellants to renew their legal efforts as to the Michigan general election later in 2024 should Trump become the Republican nominee for President of the United States or seek such office as an independent candidate.” This acknowledgment suggests that the legal saga may not be over, especially if Trump secures the Republican nomination.
The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, while a current victory for Trump, opens the door to a myriad of legal interpretations and potential challenges in other states. The case underscores the complexities involved when state laws intersect with federal constitutional provisions, particularly in the politically charged context of presidential eligibility. The contrasting outcomes in Michigan and Colorado also hint at the possibility of these issues eventually escalating to the U.S. Supreme Court, which might be called upon to provide a definitive interpretation, especially as the nation hurtles towards the 2024 primaries.
In summary, the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was legal “punt” that did not deal with the fact that Trump is only being accused of “insurrection” by the opposing political party – NOT by a court of law or any due process whatsoever.
This begs the question: Since when does an opposing political party get to gratuitously charge a candidate with a crime and remove them from a ballot?
We are winning!!!!!!!!!
Reported 4:50 pm today (Dec. 28) by PatriotNewsToday:
After the Colorado Republican State Central Committee appealed the disqualification of former President Donald J. Trump from the Colorado primary ballot, the former president is back on the ballot, marking a significant victory for the Trump camp and his supporters nationwide.
The legal maneuver challenged the earlier ruling that had disqualified Trump from the ballot, citing constitutional grounds. The Colorado Secretary of State stated in a press release today that Trump would be included on ballots for primary voters.
Central to the Committee’s argument was the assertion that the disqualification of Trump violated the First Amendment Right of Association. They contended that preventing the Republican Party from choosing its candidate infringed upon their constitutional rights.
Additionally, the petition raised questions about the application of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly whether it allows states to unilaterally remove candidates from ballots without Congressional action.
“By excluding President Trump from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in an unprecedented disregard for the First Amendment right of political parties to select the candidates of their choice and a usurpation of the rights of the people to choose their elected officials,” lawyers representing the Colorado GOP wrote….
What’s fascinating about this 14th amendment controversy is the fact that nowhere does it say anything about restricting anyone from running for office, just that they cannot hold the office if they win. So in effect voters may be voting for Trump’s VP, not Trump. I sure hope he picks someone with more than half a brain.
Someone unlike Biden or Harris
The Michigan ruling was a point of law, they did not even examine the potential of insurrection. It’s a very different ruling from Colorado based on very different laws for both States.
Basically, Michigan is saying the law does not allow this in a primary. They also noted it still could happen for the final election.
Colorado can look at this for the primaries, and can look at insurrection as they see it.
Viva la State’s Rights or 50 ways to lose your primary…….
Michigan is unfortunately a Democrat-run state, and it sucks. I know I live here. It’s such a beautiful state and run by a bunch of f**king idiots.
Without getting TOO specific, whereabouts in our Great Lakes State have you lived in? I’ve lived there for most of my life.
The usual not-see gibberish from a terminally boring Third Reich revivalist.
What’s at play here is obvious in the repeated rulings by supreme and appellate courts throughout the country. Only Colorado diverges from the reticence of most jurists to bulldoze 250 years of established law. Michigan is simply following the leader.
The odd state out is Colorado, whose supreme court justices don’t even follow their own law, let alone the Constitution. In the United States that we learned about in school (this doesn’t apply to Tom&FrankIncest, whose education consisted of three grades in a low-rent madrassa), formal punishment is meted out after conviction of crime, and Trump has not been convicted or even formally charged with insurrection. Most members of the Colorado Supreme Court ought to be charged with attempted false arrest and 10th-degree election fraud.
I spent most of my life in Michigan, and I know the high court (not so much the appellate courts) to be perenially activist — particularly when Donks are in charge. The last election swept in wokees in all levels of state government. For the Donks who run state courts to back away from the opportunity to twist and dilute state law is mighty strong evidence of the weakness of the legal case being shopped around the country made by the democracy-fearing Donk Party.
If the Colorado high court truly believed in the merits of its ruling, it would have held a trial or similar hearing to determine if Trump was guilty. They would have allowed testimony, examined evidence, established a jury and guaranteed due process. The court did nothing of the kind; it convened as close to a kangaroo court as ever existed in the U.S. If the court had proof that Trump intentionally led an insurrection, why hasn’t the court convicted and sentenced other insurrectees?
As for the final paragraphs above, who cares about more decipherable gibberish from this site’s resident Swastika slurper?
Turning the page, here’s a way to nail a not-see twoll: Ask straightforward questions and be prepared for a storm of teary deflection — but absolutely no substative answers — within minutes.
Here are some examples of responses by the swishing twoll above to earlier challenges and questions directed to him (or possibly her, or is the preferred pronoun “they”?) and dodged repeatedly in just the last week or two:
* Would “he” have sided with not-see Germany or with the U.S. and U.S. allies in WW II? Response: Took the Fifth.
* Has the U.S. fought any foreign wars since the Revolution in which he would not have not backed the enemy? Pled the Fifth.
* Name a few or even one of the most influential racists in U.S. history. Response: Took the Fifth.
* Does he(she) still believe in the pseudo-science of eugenics — white master-race doctrine — promoted by the KKKlan, the not-see party and most of the Donk Party over the past century? Response: Invoked the Fifth.
* Cite any differences between his/her and the KKKlan’s fundamental beliefs. Same for the twoll and the not-see party. Response: Hid behind the Fifth.
* On what basis does he continue to defend Franklin Roosevelt’s internship of 100,000 innocent citizens of Japanese extraction for years in WW II AGAINST the recommendations of Edgar Hoover, the top official charged with protecting Americans’ security? Congress and the White House have apologized for that massive miscarriage of justice. Not so with Twinkie the Twoll here.
* These are 100% substantive questions. Why the 100% refusal to answer? Why the refusal to answer straightforwardly?
What’s most telling to me is that the skipping twoll routinely excoriates true conservatives and libertarians, such as Clarence Thomas, Mark Levin, Ron DeSantis, Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul, but he won’t even concede that the Third Reich was any less than perfect.
Dougie Darko, resident left-of-libertarian loser, the answers to your inane questions posed for no rationale reason whatsoever and having nothing to do with any actual thread on PBP but just to titillate Doug’s dark, warped sense of reality, can be found below in ALL CAPS. Your clarifications, which you steadfastly refuse, follow.
* Would “he” have sided with not-see Germany or with the U.S. and U.S. allies in WW II? Response: Took the Fifth. NO.
* Has the U.S. fought any foreign wars since the Revolution in which he would not have not backed the enemy? Pled the Fifth. NO
* Name a few or even one of the most influential racists in U.S. history. Response: Took the Fifth. THERE ARE NO INFLUENTIAL RACISTS IMO, THEY ARE LIKE DOUG IN THAT REGARD. JUST LIKE DOUG WITH HIS BLACK HUMOR OVERTONES.
* Does he(she) still believe in the pseudo-science of eugenics — white master-race doctrine — promoted by the KKKlan, the not-see party and most of the Donk Party over the past century? Response: Invoked the Fifth. SEE: BLACK HUMOR! DARK. SCARY. BUT YOU LIE; I HAVE NEVER BELIEVED IN EUGENICS. BUT I DO KNOW THAT MOST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EUGENICS AND THEREFORE, YOU LIE AGAIN AND CAN NOT PROVE YOUR STUPID STATEMENT.
* Cite any differences between his/her and the KKKlan’s fundamental beliefs. Same for the twoll and the not-see party. Response: Hid behind the Fifth. DON’T KNOW WHAT THE KLAN’S FUNDEMENTAL BELIEFS ARE OR WHAT YOU ARE ALLUDING TO. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOUR FICTICIOUS “TWOLL” PARTY IS. NOR WHAT A NOT-SEE IS; THAT’S A CLARIFICATION YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND TO. STILL WAITING.
* On what basis does he continue to defend Franklin Roosevelt’s internship of 100,000 innocent citizens of Japanese extraction for years in WW II AGAINST the recommendations of Edgar Hoover, the top official charged with protecting Americans’ security? Congress and the White House have apologized for that massive miscarriage of justice. Not so with Twinkie the Twoll here. I HAVE NEVER DEFENDED FDR’S INCARCERATION. I AM SORRY, BUT ARE YOU REALLY ASKING ME TO APOLOGIZE FOR FDR? IF THAT’S SO, I GOT A LONG LIST OF APOLOGIES FOR YOU…..
* These are 100% substantive questions. Why the 100% refusal to answer? Why the refusal to answer straightforwardly? I REFUSED TO ANSWER BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID FISHING EXPEDIITONS WITH ZERO RELEVANCE TO THE DISCUSSION TOPIC. YOU ARE JUST BAITING ME FOR YOUR NEXT MOVE IN YOUR STUPID GAME THAT YOU UNDOUBTEDLY GET SOME SORT OF PERVERSE PLEASURE FROM. ARE YOU STILL MASTURBATING WHILE YOU TYPE THESE?
MY TURN: Disinformed Doug says: “our resident multiple-personality gnat-seeboy again demands proof that he’s a not-see.” Bad words and bad intents do not make for actual facts. Where’s the proof that I am a NAZI? What multiple personality?
Tom lives in NC, I live in NJ, you live in delusion. Tom’s a retired school teacher and engineer, factory-type engineer, I think. He’s an evolved Independent with views that transverse both parties and some libertarianism too. I am an ex-consultant, AT&T Product Manager who managed development engineers in making new things. You use my stuff. I term myself a “Clintonian Democrat,” as in Bill, not Hillary. We are two people, honestly, unlike your frequent dishonesty, use of other names like Darkky Doug and many others. Three people, only one delusional, only one hiding behind many names. Proven by his blatant lies and terrible spelling.
He whines: “tries to ream me out for poop spelling,” oh, cry, cry. Cry me a river. However, I cannot ream you out for poop spelling. You nailed poop. You know poop. Priceless. But……….you really are a terrible speller:
What’s
“Gnat-seeboy?”
“Not-see?”
“Goebbelsian?”
“Swisher-boy” (ghetto talk?)
“not-see twoll” which if you say with a lisp makes sense. Must be phonetic for Doug with the lisp.
And you gotta love: “More commonly than not,” as spoken by a good little comrade. In America Doug-doo, we say more common than not.
Or “sheet-for-brains,” another term commonly found when Russian’s speak English, or try to.
When did I “acknowledged that he (or she) would have sided with U.S. enemies in every foreign war since the founding?” or just another Doug delusion?
When did I state my “goal of destroying America?
Easy one, you said “directly.” When did I “directly concede that they would have stood with our enemies in every foreign war?”
When did I “endorses the most egregious racism that has ever existed in U.S. history — against native Americans, blacks, Jews, Asians, Christians.” And what are the Jewish and Christian races —- white, off-white, and kinda white?
And what exactly is: “promulgating that insidious form of collectivism?” Socialism? And when did I support socialism?
When did I exhibit or write about my “sympathy for the KKKlan, for the German National Socialist Workers Party, for her/his denial that racism exists or existed in the U.S. and for promulgating that insidious form of collectivism.
Feel free to use all caps in your response. There will not be a test. Or pop quiz.
HAGD and STFU with this crap. Let’s talk issues, debate like men, and quit the fantasy ad hominem attacks of personality which you so love. Substantive issues, opinions based on and supported by facts, not some stream-of-consciousness bloviated blathering name filled screed as you are prone to. Otherwise, keep talking to yourself; masturbate away.
Doug whines that I demeaned him by calling him a “darkie.” Doug lies. Doug cries. Doug lies a lot. He cries more. Rivers of tears. For some time, Doug has called me “Swisher-boy.” He had me going on this piece of gibberish, especially since he is so fond of making up words to fit his name calling paradigm of pelf, the archaic definition of course. Apparently, it’s Doug does ghetto talk for a Swisher cigar, cheap, that is emptied to create a Swisher – or blunt. Sorry man, not my language, not my style.
In response to his insane requests, I posed a simple question: ghetto talk from darky Doug perhaps? Doug was off to the races claiming I was calling him Darky Doug. The “perhaps” was erased, the lower case “darky” became the name Darky, the rasta joke forgotten, and junk-yard dog Doug just could not let go of his fantasy. It seems to upset him, like a personal offense. I mean this fine fellow has called me so many names, went after my wife, fucks with my kids, and he’s off the rails about “darky?” That’s his line in the sand, no offense to desert livers?
Then he proudly exclaims: “I take pride in being called a “darky” (which Merriam-Webster defines as “an insulting and contemptuous term for a Black person.”). So he’s offended by that which he takes pride in? I’ve been called a “Detroit N-word” and any number of anti-Semitic names.” So WTF is he crying in his beer for? Big baby he is says Yoda.
And then he even changes his name entering posts under: “darkky doug on December 24, 2023 at 2:55 pm”
I dunno folks. I never called him darky except with a PERHAPS as an adjective based on his own ghetto description of a joint. He even calls himself DARKKY DOUG, again showing his spelling talent that he bitches about for anyone else. And claims he’s proud of being called Darky Doug as he changes his name on PBP to DARKKY DOUG.
Surprised he missed the chance for “DarKKKy Doug.”
Exceedingly boring. It’s what Doug does best.
Michigan, that explains a lot.
What do any of your prefab cut n paste nonsense questions have to do with the Michigan or Colorado discussion?
Can’t you stay on point?
Why always off color, off topic, and just plain off?
Are you still being called a Detroit n-word?
Does that stand for nazi?
It’s always darkest before the dawn.
Laff
out
loud.
Old bidness trumps new bidness until old bidness is completed.
Poor waddling not-seeboy thinks he can just ignore proof, logic and truth.
Time to write a headline. Maybe…
Nasty Not-zee ballistic over being identified as Hamas-slurping
Christ-loathing, anti-Semitic eugenicist with gender-bending issues
It’s happening again. The state of Maine has removed Trump from the ballot. Of course it will be overturned. I can’t help but wonder how much more election stealing attempts by using trumped up charges? No pun intended. But the great thing is that the democrats in their desperate attempts are overplaying their hands and committing voter fraud by weaponizing the 14amendment of the Constitution. Keep it up commiecrats. You’re doing a great job
Trumped up charges? That’s funny. Dan, many of these folks are looking at the law, look at Trump, and in the case of Maine, the top election official, the Democratic ALCU-type, Secretary of State pulled the trigger stating: “the record establishes that Mr. Trump, over the course of several months and culminating on Jan. 6, 2021, used a false narrative of election fraud to inflame his supporters and direct them” to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.” Further, he “was aware of the likelihood for violence and at least initially supported its use given he both encouraged it with incendiary rhetoric and took no timely action to stop it.” It’s the fucking three hours of him watching on TV and doing absolutely nothing except toss a few burgers at the wall when they couldn’t find Pence that done him in. Sounds good enough for me.
But it depends on State Law, State’s Rights, and the freaking SCOTUS should back off just like they backed off on abortion rights tossing that back to the States.
Minnesota and Michigan, according to their State Laws, have ordered Trump to remain on the ballot. California, according to their State Law, has demurred saying he will be there. Crazy Democratic California that is. But in California State Law, the SoS does not have the same legal power to remove him as unqualified to hold the office, as in Maine State Law. Oregon will hear the case again, they have denied once, but there appears to be some new thinking in the land given the unearthing of the 14th, section 3.
Whatssa matter snowflake, you don’t like State Rights in action? Served you well for abortion but not you want to abort it for elections? Serves you right to suffer, mates. But feel better, chances are the SCOTUS will pick it up, abort State Law for their own political purposes, and it will be the Florida decision all over again.
Achtung!
Der schveinhund knothead not-see again proves his gnatsey racism as he keeps taking der Fimpf on his not-see scorecard.
Doug —- did you just get off your shift at Wendy’s? Wow, 1am post…..