Justice Boatright decision is incorrect

[Smackdown2019]

In dissenting, Colorado Justice Boatright stated, “In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action under Colorado’s election code,”

After the Civil War, they didnt hold trials to convict Confederate Soldiers of insurrection, they simply look at the evidence. After the Civil War, Confederate Soldiers were paroled and returned back to their lives. An insurrection is an act against the United States, either to overthrow or to destroy. 14th amendment was created to prevent a repeat of a violent take over or peaceful takeover by election means.
One could insurrect and dont have to be convicted, but still could lose all citizen rights without a trial if evidence is proven in court.
Example, dead robber found at the scene of the robbery. Dead robber is not convicted, but is proven to at the scene robbing. Conviction is not necessarily if prove is concrete.

[hlthe2b]

1. Yes... but honestly I think he and the other two dissenters were just reaching for SOMETHING

to pin their hat on and vote no. They were unanimous on the facts of the case, however, and that is the most important factor from the ruling. We shall see...

[RockRaven]

2. Being wrong about the relevant facts with which they construct their arguments

doesn't affect Repuke judges/justices in the slightest bit, not when they've got a political agenda to pursue.

[Celerity]

4. The 3 CO SC dissenters were all Democratic appointees

[RockRaven]

5. And yet Boatright, who is the subject of the OP which I was responding to, is

a Republican.

[Celerity]

6. Appointed by Hickenlooper

Brian Boatright

Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 1, 2021
Appointed by
John Hickenlooper
Preceded by
Nathan B. Coats

Associate Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court
Incumbent
Assumed office
November 21, 2011
Appointed by
John Hickenlooper
Preceded by
Alex J. Martinez

[RockRaven]

9. We can repeat this to infinity. He's a Republican, which is what I commented upon.

The party affiliation of whoever appointed him was not the subject of my post, nor does it change his party affiliation.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Every disqualification since the Civil War has had a conviction for a relevant crime

Proof of being a Confederate was sufficient for disqualification immediately following ratification of the 14th amendment, but since then, disqualification has required a relevant conviction.

There have only been two disqualifications in the past 100 years, and both followed convictions in a court of law.

Not disqualified: dozens of sitting congressmen who colluded and collaborated with Nazis, but were acquitted of seditious conspiracy charges.

[Igel]

7. Another problem?

In the absence of an insurrection, speech, even speech that supported the start of an insurrection, was excluded by 1A.

"Incitement" is iffy in this case. Yeah, "We know what he really dog-whistled" is a great line, but unless you're a dog you don't hear a dog-whistle.

We have this tendency to be consistently inconsistent with bullshitting: When offended, it's god's honest truth; when it's obviously narrative-challenged, obviously it's a lie.

So Trump is inconsistently, but completely knowably a priori, if he's a 100% truth-teller or a 100% liar. "Knowably a priori," sadly, is 100% congruent with (D) needs. How Trump so perfectly aligned himself with (D) needs ... Maybe it's because before he became the evangelical (R) savior he ran for president as a (D)? Dunno. (And, honestly, at 10:54 CST on a Tuesday, I'm more concerned about why the stray I recently converted to a house-cat still reeks ... friendly, mostly cute, recovering some some horrible experiences shortly before our first face-to-face encounter, which includes my almost running her over ... Maybe 12 weeks old, she still reeks.)

[marble falls]

8. Pretty much how the law looks at it. He's convicted himself out of his own mouth and tweets over and over.

[The Magistrate]

10. It Is Not An Unreasonable View

It is far more reasonable than wrangling over whether a President is an 'official' of the United States, and slightly different wordings in the oath of office.

[scipan]

11. I think you're right.

Saw this a few minutes ago from a lawyer I follow:

Link to tweet

?t=k3uCw_kMAa-N3r78Y5hH0Q&s=19

Lesser burden of proof. It's civil.