This is why I love and support Vivek!

[Dove]

It's a beautiful vaccine

Yeah. Bullshit bro

But he's better than anyone they are running except Vivek

I'd actually prefer to see Vivek but it'll be a snow storm in hell before I ever vote for a stinking democrat for anything

 To be fair....Trump was anti mandate. So there is that.

[Thiel]

I didn't support the lockdowns either and he dropped the ball on that.

Trump blames Biden for inflation that is eating away at American wages. But, Trump sent a $3.1 billion COVID package to the Democratic congress. They approved it and wanted more.

[Biggie Smiles]

you guys really need to read the opinions of the dissenting (sane) justices in this case

it will show you just how disgusting and low democrats really are

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-supreme-court-opinions-decision-trump-primary-ballot/

Scroll to the near bottom of the page and the pdf will be embedded within a frame

[Biggie Smiles]

CHIEF JUSTICE BOATRIGHT dissenting.
¶258
 
I agree with the majority that an action brought under section 1-1-113, C.R.S.
(2023) of Colorado's election code ("Election Code")
may examine whether a candidate is qualified for office under the U.S. Constitution. But section 1-1-113 has a limited scope.
Kuhn v. Williams,
 2018 CO 30M, ¶ 1 n.1, 418 P.3d 478, 480 n.1
(per curiam, unanimous) (emphasizing "the narrow nature of our review under
section 1-1-
113"). In my view, the claim at issue in this case exceeds that scope. The voters' (the "Electors") action to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump
under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment presents uniquely complex questions that exceed the adjudicative competence of section 1-1-
113's expedited
procedures. Simply put, section 1-1-113 was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection. In my view, this cause of action should have been dismissed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I.
The Electors' Challenge Is Incompatible with a
Section 1-1-113 Proceeding
¶259
 
Section 1-1-113 provides for the resolution of potential election code violations in a timely manner. In many scenarios, Colorado voters can challenge
the Secretary of State's (the "Secretary") certification of a candidate's
qualifications.
Carson v. Reiner
, 2016 CO 38, ¶ 17, 370 P.3d 1137, 1141 (acknowledging that section 1-1-
113 "clearly comprehends challenges to a broad range of wrongful acts committed by [Colorado's election] officials charged with
  2 duties under the code [and] comprehends a specific challenge to a designated
election official's certification of a candidate"). While section
 1-1-113 only offers
voters a "narrow opportunity,"
 Kuhn
, ¶ 28, 418 P.3d at 484, that opportunity has proven effective as voters have compelled the Secretary to omit from the ballot unqualified candidates whom they would have otherwise listed.
E.g.
,
id.
 at ¶ 57, 418 P.3d at 489 (barring a candidate from the ballot because his petition circulator was not a Colorado resident). Section 1-1-
113's grant of disc
retionary review to
this court has also vindicated voters' rights by preventing a decision that would
have compelled the Secretary to place an unqualified candidate on the ballot.
Griswold v. Ferrigno Warren
, 2020 CO 34, ¶ 26, 462 P.3d 1081, 1087 (barring a candidate from the ballot because she failed to gather sufficient signatures).
¶260
 
Further, our election code suggests that a petitioner may base a challenge to
the Secretary's certification of an aspiring presidential primary candidate on
federal law.
Compare
 § 1-4-1203(2)(a), C.R.S. (2023) (stating that a candidate must
be "qualified"
),
with
 §1-4-1201, C.R.S. (2023) (declaring that the code conforms to federal law);
see also
 
Coats v. Dish Network, LLC
, 2015 CO 44, ¶ 20, 350 P.3d 849, 853
(relying on federal law to interpret "lawful activity" in a Colorado statute). We
have previously held, however, that some federal law claims cannot be adjudicated under section 1-1-113.
E.g.
,
 Frazier v. Williams
, 2017 CO 85, ¶ 19,
  3 401 P.3d 541, 545 (concluding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim cannot be the basis of, or joined to, a section 1-1-113 action).
¶261
 
But not all federal questions exceed the scope of section 1-1-113. A qualification challenge under Article II, Section 1
1
 or the Twenty-Second Amendment
2
 lends itself to section 1-1-
113's procedures. Although a claim that a
candidate is not thirty-five years old may be easier to resolve than a claim that a candidate is not a natural born citizen, these presidential qualifications are characteristically objective, discernible facts. Age, time previously served as president, and place of birth all pa
rallel core qualification issues under Colorado's
election code.
3
 Conversely, all these questions pale in comparison to the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection.
1
 U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5 provides the presidential qualifications: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
2
 U.S. Const. amend. XXII, § 1 provides further presidential qualifications: No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
3
 
See also
 Colorado Secretary of State,
Presidential Primary 2024 Candidate Qualification Guide
 3, https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/
  4
¶262
 
Far from presenting a straightforward biographical question, Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment proscribes insurrectionist U.S. officers from again holding office. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. Unlike qualifications such as age and place of birth, an application of Section Three requires courts to define complex terms, determine legislative intent from over 150 years ago, and make factual findings foreign to our election code. The Electors contend that there is nothing
"particularly unusual about a section 1
-1-113 proceeding raising constitutional
issues." However, the framework that section 1
-1-113 offers for identifying qualified candidates is not commensurate with the extraordinary determination to disqualify a candidate because they engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.
See
 Dis. op. ¶ 35
2 (Berkenkotter, J., dissenting) (noting that "the
historical application of section 1-1-113 . . . has been limited to challenges involving relatively straightforward issues, like whether a candidate meets a residency requirement for a school board
election."). Recognizing this limitation
of section 1-1-113 is not novel.
See Kuhn
, ¶ 1 n.1, 418 P.3d at 480 n.1 (emphasizing
"the narrow nature of our review under section 1
-1-
113" and declining to address a First Amendment challenge to Colorado's resid
ency requirement for petition Candidates/packets/2024PresidentialPrimaryGuide.pdf [https:// perma.cc/KK3L-X8BM]
(listing the "basic qualifications" for the presidency including the
qualifications from Article II and the Twenty-Second Amendment but not
mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment's disqualification for insurrectionists).
  5
circulators "because such claims exceed this court's jurisdiction in a section 1
-1-113
action").
 
¶263
 
Dismissal is particularly appropriate here because the Electors brought their challenge without a determination from a proceeding (e.g., a prosecution for an insurrection-related offense) with more rigorous procedures to ensure adequate due process. Instead, the Electors relied on section 1-1-
113 and its "breakneck pace"
 
to declare President Trump a disqualified insurrectionist.
See
 
Frazier
, ¶ 11, 401 P.3d at 544.
II. As Demonstrated by the Proceeding Below, the Statutory Timeline for a Section 1-1-113 Proceeding Does Not
Permit a Claim as Complex as the Electors'
 
¶264
 
In addition to qualitative incompatibilities, the complexity of the El
ectors'
claims cannot be squared with section 1-1-
113's truncated timeline for
adjudication. Section 1-1-113 actions for presidential primary ballots fulfill a need for speed by requiring the district court to hold a hearing within
 five days
 and issue its decision within forty-eight hours of the hearing: Any such challenge must provide notice in a summary manner of an alleged impropriety that gives rise to the complaint. No later than five days after the challenge is filed, a hearing must be held at which time the district court shall hear the challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties. The district court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than forty-eight hours after the hearing. The party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.
  6 § 1-4-1204, C.R.S. (2023). This speed comes with consequences, namely, the absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and the public would expect for complex constitutional litigation. As President Trump, argues and the Electors do not contest, section 1-1-
113's procedures do not provide common tools for
complex fact-finding: preliminary evidentiary or pre-trial motions hearings, subpoena powers, basic discovery, depositions, and time for disclosure of witnesses and exhibits. This same concern was raised in
Frazier
; the then-Secretary
argued that "
it is impossible to fully litigate a complex constitutional issue within days or weeks, as is typical of a section 1-1-113 proceeding.
" ¶ 18 n.3,
401 P.3d at 545 n.3. While we avoided deciding if a claim could be too complex for a section 1-1-113 proceeding in
Frazier
, that question is unavoidable here, and it demands that we reconcile the complexity of this issue with the breakneck pace of a section 1-1-113 procedure. In my view, the answer to this question is dispositive.
¶265
 
This case's procedural history proves my point. Despite clear requirements,
the district court did not follow section 1-4-
1204's statutory timeline for
section 1-1-113 claims. The proceeding below involved two delays that, respectively, violated (1) the requirement that the merits hearing be held within five days of the challenge being lodged, and (2) the requirement that the district court issue its order within forty-eight hours of the merits hearing.
  7
¶266
 
The Electors filed their challenge on September 6, 2023. Although the question of whether this action should be removed to federal court was resolved by September 14, the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing until
October 30. The majority appears to imply that a "status conference" on
September 18 fulfills the statutory requirement that the hearing be held within five d
ays of the Electors' challenge. Maj. op. ¶
 83. However, a status conference
plainly does not satisfy the requirement: "No later than five days after the
challenge is filed, a hearing must be held
 at which time the district court shall hear the challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties
." §
 1-4-1204 (emphasis added);
see Carson
, ¶ 21, 370 P.3d at 1142 (ruling that section 1-1-
113 "does not permit a challenge to an election official's certification of a candidate to the ballot,
solely o
n the basis of the certified candidate's qualification, once the period . . . for
challenging the qualification of the candidate directly has expired . . .
."). It is no
mystery why the statutory timeline could not be enforced: This claim was too complex.
4
 
The fact it took a week shy of two months to hold a hearing that "must"
take place within five days proves that section 1-1-113 is an incompatible vehicle
4
 The intervals between the challenge and the hearing, and the hearing and the order, should not cast aspersions on the district court, which made valiant efforts to add some process above and beyond what the election code provides. However, the Colorado General Assembly, not the district court, decides when and how to change statutory requirements.
  8 for this claim. The majority recognizes the five-day requirement, Maj. op. ¶ 38, but it does not acknowledge the violation of section 1-4-
1204's timeline or give
consequence to that violation.
¶267
 
Nonetheless, the majority touts the fact that a hearing was held and lauds
the district court's timely issuance of its decision as evidence that this matter
was not too complex for a section 1-1-113 proceeding. Maj. op. ¶¶ 84
–
85. But was the order timely issued? Substantially, I think not.
Compare
 Maj. op. ¶
22 ("The trial
began, as scheduled, on October 30 [a Monday]. The evidentiary portion lasted five days [through Friday, November 3], with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15. . . . The court issued its written final order on November 17 . . .
."),
with
 § 1-4-
1204 ("The district court shall issue findings of fact
and conclusions of law no later than forty-
eight hours after the hearing.").
Section 1-4-1204 only mandates two deadlines, and neither were honored. After all the evidence had been presented at a week-long hearing, the court suspended proceedings for two weeks. I find nothing in the record offering a reason grounded in the election code for the interval between the five consecutive days of the hearing and the solitary closing arguments. However, I understand the necessity to postpone the closing arguments for one reason: The complexity of the
case required more time than "no later than forty
-
eight hours after the hearing"
for the court to draft its 102-page order. Thus, while the district court formally
  9 issued its order within forty-eight hours of the closing arguments, the interval between the evidentiary hearings and the closing arguments was not in compliance with section 1-4-1204.
¶268
 
The majority condoned the district court's failure to observe the statutory timeline by concluding that it "substantially compl[ied]."
See
 Maj. op. ¶ 85. This
renders the statute's five
-day and forty-eight-hour requirements meaningless.
Contra
 
Ferrigno Warren
, ¶ 20, 462 P.3d at 1085 (holding that, under Colorado's election code, a "specific statutory command could not be ignored in the na
me of
substantial compliance");
Gallegos Fam. Props., LLC v. Colo. Groundwater Comm'n
,
2017 CO 73, ¶ 25, 398 P.3d 599, 608 ("Where the language is clear, we must apply the language as written."). If a court must contort a special proceeding's statutory
timeline to process a claim, then that claim is not proper for the special proceeding.
¶269
 
From my perspective, just because a hearing was held and Intervenors
participated, it doesn't mean that due process was observed. Nor should it be
inferred that section 1-1-
113's statutory procedures, which were not followed, were up to the task. I cannot agree with the majority that the district court's
extra-statutory delays and select procedure augmentations indicate that the
Electors' claim was fit for adjudication
under sections 1-4-1204(4) and 1-1-113.
Contra
, Maj. op. ¶
81 ("In short, the district court admirably—
and swiftly
—
discharged its duty to adjudicate this complex section 1-1-
113 action."). Dragging
  10
someone through a "makeshift proceeding" is not an indic
ation that it was an appropriate process.
See
 Dis. op. ¶ 274 (Samour, J., dissenting). Importantly, the
Electors were not rushed into the process; they didn't have to file their challenge
until they were prepared. Only Intervenors arguably had inadequate time to prepare.
¶270
 
Finally, only a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress can overturn a Section Three disqualification. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. This remedy is extraordinary and speaks volumes about the gravity of the disqualification. Such a high bar indicates that an expedited hearing absent any discovery procedures and with a preponderance of the evidence standard is not the appropriate means for adjudicating a matter of this magnitude.
5
 
See Frazier
, ¶¶ 17
–
18, 401 P.3d at 545 (holding t
hat "inconsistencies" between the procedures of section 1
-1-113 and a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "reinforce" the conclusion that not all federal law
claims can be raised in section 1-1-113 proceedings).
5
 Although the district court made its findings using the clear and convincing standard, the election code calls for a preponderance standard. § 1-4-
1204 ("The
 party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the challenge by a
preponderance of the evidence.").
 
  11
III. Conclusion
¶271
 
My opinion that this is an inadequate cause of action is dictated by the facts of this case, particularly the absence of a criminal conviction for an insurrection-related offense.
¶272
 
The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory
timeframe because the Electors' claim overwhelmed the process. 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. Therefore, I would dismiss the claim at
issue here. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent

[Herman]

you guys really need to read the opinions of the dissenting (sane) justices in this case

it will show you just how disgusting and low democrats really are

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-supreme-court-opinions-decision-trump-primary-ballot/

Scroll to the near bottom of the page and the pdf will be embedded within a frame

I read it, but I did not need the dissenting judges to tell me the obvious-the democRATs hate democracy.

[Herman]

I believe that even democRATS can see they have gone too far this time. This could put Trump to 270 electoral votes even if the Supreme Court reverses Colorado's decision.

Democrats privately admit the inevitable after Colorado bars Trump from ballot: 'Attempting election interference'
https://www.theblaze.com/news/democrats-panic-trump-ballot-colorado?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202023-12-21&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM

Democrats are privately upset with the Colorado Supreme Court because they believe the ruling that bars Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot will ultimately help the former president.

The message of President Joe Biden's campaign is clear: Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. But officials in the Biden administration and Biden campaign fear the Colorado Supreme Court has undercut that narrative.

NBC News, citing sources, reported that officials in both the White House and Biden campaign are "pissed" with the Colorado Supreme Court because the ruling makes it look "like Colorado is attempting election interference through non-elected Democratic-appointed justices with funding from 'shady left-wing donors.'"

In fact, Democratic officials are so worried about the political ramifications of the ruling that they hope Supreme Court justices unanimously rule in Trump's favor if and when they hear an appeal of the Colorado decision.

"We all hope Biden wakes up on Christmas morning to an A3 story in the Delaware News Journal saying that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Trump," a Democratic source told NBC News.

That another legal judgment against Trump would help his campaign is not a surprise. After all, Trump's polling only went up after his criminal indictments, and he now leads Biden in most polls.

Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis told NBC News the Colorado decision "feeds the Trump persecution complex." But it does more than that. For the average American, the decision proves it.

Not only are three different prosecutors hoping to bring Trump to trial in the middle of the 2024 campaign, but now four non-elected, Democrat-appointed justices have removed Trump from one state's ballot. It's a bad look for Biden and Democrats, who are on the side that claims to be the defenders of American democracy, especially when they decried election security laws in Georgia as Jim Crow 2.0.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr summarized the political impact that Colorado's decision will have on voters.

"This kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race, are counterproductive. They backfire," he said on CNN. "He feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen. This is going to end up as a grievance that helps him."

[Biggie Smiles]

I believe that even democRATS can see they have gone too far this time. This could put Trump to 270 electoral votes even if the Supreme Court reverses Colorado's decision.

Democrats privately admit the inevitable after Colorado bars Trump from ballot: 'Attempting election interference'
https://www.theblaze.com/news/democrats-panic-trump-ballot-colorado?utm_source=theblaze-dailyPM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__PM%202023-12-21&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20PM

Democrats are privately upset with the Colorado Supreme Court because they believe the ruling that bars Donald Trump from the Colorado ballot will ultimately help the former president.

The message of President Joe Biden's campaign is clear: Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. But officials in the Biden administration and Biden campaign fear the Colorado Supreme Court has undercut that narrative.

NBC News, citing sources, reported that officials in both the White House and Biden campaign are "pissed" with the Colorado Supreme Court because the ruling makes it look "like Colorado is attempting election interference through non-elected Democratic-appointed justices with funding from 'shady left-wing donors.'"

In fact, Democratic officials are so worried about the political ramifications of the ruling that they hope Supreme Court justices unanimously rule in Trump's favor if and when they hear an appeal of the Colorado decision.

"We all hope Biden wakes up on Christmas morning to an A3 story in the Delaware News Journal saying that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Trump," a Democratic source told NBC News.

That another legal judgment against Trump would help his campaign is not a surprise. After all, Trump's polling only went up after his criminal indictments, and he now leads Biden in most polls.

Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis told NBC News the Colorado decision "feeds the Trump persecution complex." But it does more than that. For the average American, the decision proves it.

Not only are three different prosecutors hoping to bring Trump to trial in the middle of the 2024 campaign, but now four non-elected, Democrat-appointed justices have removed Trump from one state's ballot. It's a bad look for Biden and Democrats, who are on the side that claims to be the defenders of American democracy, especially when they decried election security laws in Georgia as Jim Crow 2.0.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr summarized the political impact that Colorado's decision will have on voters.

"This kind of action of stretching the law, taking these hyper-aggressive positions to try to knock Trump out of the race, are counterproductive. They backfire," he said on CNN. "He feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen. This is going to end up as a grievance that helps him."

No No... but according to that Liam Numbnuts douchebag Trump is really taking a beating over this   

TDS causes brain aneurysm for real

[Herman]

No No... but according to that Liam Numbnuts douchebag Trump is really taking a beating over this   

TDS causes brain aneurysm for real

Who is that? Some clown guest on the View.

[Biggie Smiles]

Who is that? Some clown guest on the View.

Some asshole guest who wandered out of his bastard factory cage

[Herman]

Some asshole guest who wandered out of his bastard factory cage

He sounds like a really bright fella.

[Moonie]

There are worse states but it definitely isn't one of the top states on my list.

I'm sure there are.  I can count California is one that I will never visit again. My list is getting bigger each day.

[DKG]

A Biden official's Democrat-aligned group successfully got President Joe Biden's top rival removed from the ballot in Colorado ahead of the 2024 election. The 81-year-old president wasted no time justifying this limit on voter choice, regurgitating familiar alarmist rhetoric Wednesday night about former President Donald Trump posing a threat to democracy.

A Dem group blocked Trump's candidacy and Biden says Trump is the one who is a threat to demomcracy.

[DKG]

Biden's remarks were not well received.

The geriatric president has since been accused of "gaslighting," fascism, and hypocrisy over his projection of anti-democratic sentiments onto his now-verboten political opponent — an opponent who has been leading in the polls in several critical swing states.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton wrote on X, "Biden tries to justify abusing Trump's civil rights and rigging the election through political prosecutions and kangaroo court proceedings. Our Republic is tottering because of Biden's abuses."

Blaze TV host Mark Levin noted, "The Biden campaign is well underway: dehumanize Trump by using the fascist/Marxist tactic of dehumanizing your opponent and repeating the big lie that Trump is Hitler, block Trump from ballot access in blue states while claiming it is he who opposed democracy, drain Trump of personal and campaign resources through civil and criminal lawsuits aka lawfare, keep Trump in court after court to prevent him from running a proper campaign, ultimately convict him of some phony crime and sentence him to prison."

Mollie Hemingway, editor in chief at the Federalist, responded, "Disgusting rhetoric from the president, showing his complete support for his administration's authoritarian attack on Republicans, and his support for other Democrat Party attacks on the republic."

"The greatest threat to democracy is the person tied or leading me in current polls," wrote Stephen Miller, contributing editor at the Spectator.

While Biden has been hyping this supposed threat for well over a year, Trump now appears to be recycling the accusation.

During a speech Saturday in New Hampshire, Trump said, "It's no wonder Biden and the far-left lunatics are desperate to stop us by any means necessary. They're willing to violate the U.S. Constitution at levels never seen before in order to win. They will do anything to win. They'll do whatever they have, whatever they can. And remember, this: Joe Biden is a threat to democracy. He's a threat."

[Moonie]

They probably live in the metro area. 

 Everyone who hates living here lives in the metro area lol


 I love Michigan. We have everything here. Every season. Country. Cities. Small towns. Rural farm communities. Waterfalls. Islands. Lakes.  Everything.
 

I do want to see the lakes and waterfalls I heard it's absolutely beautiful.  He just cracked me up.  Wanted me to visit his home in Naples.  He was very kind and generous.  Sadly can't remember his name now it's been so long.

[DKG]

I do want to see the lakes and waterfalls I heard it's absolutely beautiful.  He just cracked me up.  Wanted me to visit his home in Naples.  He was very kind and generous.  Sadly can't remember his name now it's been so long.

I go to Florida every winter. I will be going next month. I love that state.