Even Dem Appointed Colorado Judges Are SLAMMING Their Colleagues
Justice Carlos Samour wrote, " . . . there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office.” TDS is a terrible condition . . .
By R. Kelly
December 20, 2023
The Colorado liberal judges who dissented from the decision to ban former President Trump from the state’s primary ballot are slamming their colleagues.
Justices Carlos Samour, Maria Berkenkotter, and Chief Justice Brian D. Boatright all dissented and wrote critical papers.
The decision to bar former President Donald J. Trump — by all accounts the current leading Republican presidential candidate (and reportedly the current leading overall presidential candidate) — from Colorado’s presidential primary ballot flies in the face of the due process doctrine,” Samour wrote.
“Even if we are convinced that a candidate committed horrible acts in the past — dare I say, engaged in insurrection — there must be procedural due process before we can declare that individual disqualified from holding public office,” he wrote.
Samour also added that the decision “risked chaos in the county.”
Adding that, “this can’t possibly be the outcome the framers intended.”
The Trump campaign swiftly responded to the decision.
“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight and we will swiftly file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court and a concurrent request for a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these unAmerican lawsuits,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.
The majority decision claimed that they “are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Yet they stayed their decision until the SCOTUS gets to rule on it meaning this is just all for show.
Despite no one being convicted of committing an insurrection the majority opinion ruled otherwise.
“President Trump did not merely incite the insurrection,” the majority opinion continued. “Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling Senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes.”
https://freedomherald.com/dissent-decision/
Tired of missing the real news? Tired of censorship? Tired of our corrupt liberal mainstream press that only shows you what they want you to see? Subscribe to Ineptocracy Chronicles today and get the other side of the real news in your inbox daily. It’s free.
Ineptocracy
A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers
.
I pulled out and reread section 3 of the 14th Amendment closely (sadly, I have not read the Constitution and Bill of Rights in a while). The disqualifying insurrection or rebellion is Constitution.
I thought I had to be overlooking something. I contacted a friend, a retired district judge and asked him if I understood correctly. I do.
I haven't read the CO SCt opinion yet, the dissents interest me. I have been so disappointed with the judges indulging their effed-up ideologies, when judges re supposed to restrain themselves, avoid any appearance of impropriety. They took the same law school classes I did, for crying out loud!