The Colorado Supreme Court removes Trump from the ballot, citing ‘insurrection’.

Colorado’s Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump cannot run for president next year in the state, citing a constitutional insurrection clause.

View: Trump describes indictments as a “badge of honor.”


In a 4-3 decision, the court declared that Mr. Trump was ineligible as a candidate due to his involvement in an insurrection related to the US Capitol riot almost three years ago.


This doesn’t prevent Mr. Trump from running in other states, and his campaign has stated its intention to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

They asserted that the decision was “fundamentally flawed.”

The verdict specifically addresses the state’s primary election on March 5, during which Republican voters will select their favored presidential candidate. However, it may have repercussions for the general election in Colorado next November.

This marks the inaugural application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution to disqualify a presidential candidate.

The decision made on Tuesday, which has been temporarily suspended pending an appeal until the next month, is applicable solely in Colorado. Similar efforts to remove Mr. Trump from the ballot in New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Michigan have been unsuccessful.


Is Trump still eligible to run for president following the decision in Colorado?

In their ruling, the justices stated, “We do not arrive at these conclusions lightly. We are cognizant of the significance and gravity of the questions presently under consideration.”

“We are also conscious of our solemn responsibility to uphold the law impartially, unaffected by public sentiment regarding the decisions that the law requires us to make.”

The ruling overturns a previous decision by a Colorado judge, who determined that the insurrection ban of the 14th Amendment did not extend to presidents because the section did not explicitly reference them.


‘Ecstatic’: Attorney for Colorado plaintiffs reacts to the ballot outcome.

The identical lower court judge also concluded that Mr. Trump had engaged in an insurrection during the US Capitol riot. His supporters stormed Congress on January 6, 2021, while lawmakers were in the process of certifying President Joe Biden’s election victory.

The ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court becomes effective on January 4, 2024, which is the day before the deadline for the state to finalize its presidential primary ballots.

“Leaders of the Democratic Party are experiencing heightened concern over the significant and increasing lead President Trump has secured in the polls,” stated Mr. Cheung in a press release.

“They have abandoned confidence in the ineffective Biden presidency and are employing every means to prevent American voters from ousting them from office next November,” remarked Mr. Cheung.

Mr. Cheung further stated that Mr. Trump’s legal team would promptly submit an appeal to the US Supreme Court, where conservatives maintain a 6 to 3 majority.


Understanding the Legal Attempt to Remove Trump from the Ballot


Representatives for Mr. Biden’s re-election campaign chose not to provide a comment on the Colorado ruling. However, a senior Democrat associated with the campaign informed CBS News, the BBC’s US partner, that the decision would aid Democrats by reinforcing their assertion that the US Capitol riot constituted an attempted insurrection.

The source mentioned that it would also assist Democrats in highlighting “the glaring distinctions” between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden.

Republican legislators criticized the ruling, with House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson denouncing it as “a thinly veiled partisan attack.”

He expressed, “Irrespective of political affiliation, every registered voter should not be deprived of the right to endorse our former president, who currently leads in every Republican primary poll.”

On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump’s rivals in the Republican primary also criticized the decision, with Vivek Ramaswamy vowing to withdraw his name from the ballot if Mr. Trump’s candidacy is not reinstated.

Mr. Trump, while speaking at a campaign event in Iowa on Tuesday night, did not comment on the ruling. However, a fundraising email sent by his campaign to supporters stated, “this is how dictatorships are born.”

The Colorado Republican Party also reacted, announcing that it would withdraw from the state’s primary process if the ruling was upheld.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the organization that initiated the case, expressed satisfaction with the ruling.

The group’s president, Noah Bookbinder, stated in a release, “It is not only historic and justified but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country.”

Vivek Ramaswamy urged all candidates to withdraw from the ballot in Colorado.


The 14th Amendment, ratified after the American Civil War, included Section 3 to prevent secessionists from resuming former government positions after southern states rejoined the Union.

The provision was applied to Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his vice-president, Alexander Stephens, both of whom had previously served in Congress. Its application has been rare since then.

In the previous presidential election, Mr. Trump faced a significant defeat in the state of Colorado. However, if courts in more closely contested states adopt a similar stance to Tuesday’s ruling, it could pose significant challenges for Mr. Trump’s White House aspirations.

In a one-week trial last month in Colorado, lawyers representing the former president argued that he should not be disqualified, contending that he did not bear responsibility for the US Capitol riot.

However, in its ruling, the majority of the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed.

They stated that Mr. Trump’s messages before the riot were a “call to his supporters to fight, and his supporters responded to that call.”

Carlos Samour, one of three dissenting justices, contended that the government could not “deprive someone of the right to hold public office without due process of law.”

“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.

Mr. Trump is currently confronting four legal cases, encompassing both federal and state charges in Georgia, linked to his alleged involvement in efforts to undermine the election.

The US Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to the ban on gay ‘conversion therapy’ in Washington state.

This blog originally appeared at Reuters.

The US Supreme Court rejects a challenge to the ban on gay ‘conversion therapy’ in Washington state.

A demonstrator waves an LGBT rights ‘pride flag’ during a gathering outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on December 5, 2022.

On December 11, Reuters reported that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition to review a case challenging Washington state’s law prohibiting “conversion therapy” for minors. This law, enacted in 2018, aims to prevent attempts to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case was brought by a Christian therapist who argued that the law violated free speech rights.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Brian Tingley’s appeal challenging the Washington state law on “conversion therapy.” Tingley argued that the law violated his freedom of speech under the First Amendment by restricting how he communicates with therapy clients. The court’s decision upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the case, with the state contending that it regulates professional conduct rather than speech.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the decision to reject the case. This marked another clash between LGBT protections and the religious rights of individuals.


In June, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled that certain businesses had a free speech right to decline providing services for same-sex weddings. The liberal justices who dissented characterized the decision as a “license to discriminate.”

Tingley, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Tacoma, Washington, contends that sexual relationships outside of a marriage between one man and one woman are “inconsistent with God’s design.” He also asserts that “the sex each person receives at conception” is “a gift from God.”

The Democratic-backed law bars licensed healthcare professionals from administering therapies to minors intended to “alter an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Violations may result in sanctions such as censure, fines, or the revocation of the professional’s license.

The law allows licensed therapists to engage in discussions or advocacy for conversion therapy, provide such therapy to adults, or recommend it to be carried out by others, including religious counselors. However, the law does not extend to non-licensed counselors operating under the umbrella of a church, religious denomination, or organization.


In a written opinion on Monday, Justice Thomas emphasized the importance of addressing the issue of gender identity and argued that the court should have considered the case. According to Thomas, Washington state’s law has effectively silenced one side of a “fierce public debate” by prohibiting counselors from assisting clients in “accepting their biological sex.”

He added, “That is pure viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination.”


He argued that there’s no evidence licensed therapists have ever employed abusive practices on children.

He argued that the law impermissibly provides the state with a free pass to censor professionals and targets individuals based on their religion.

The state argues that it has the authority to regulate the conduct of professionals, even if such regulation may impact speech. It points out that 26 states and the District of Columbia restrict or prohibit conversion therapy for minors.

Tingley filed a lawsuit against the state in 2021. U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan dismissed the case, stating that the law does not violate Tingley’s First Amendment rights because it is “rationally related” to the state’s interest in protecting the well-being of minors.

The judge’s ruling was affirmed by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022.

Tingley is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has contested various LGBT protections. The same group also represented the business owner in the Colorado same-sex weddings case.

The Best US States for LGBTQ Couples: Where to Live and Thrive – queer voices

This blog originally appeared at Queer Voices.

In terms of LGBTQ rights and acceptance, the United States has made significant progress, but the level of LGBTQ-friendliness can vary across states. In this article, we will discuss five states that are considered the best for LGBTQ couples, taking into account factors such as anti-discrimination laws, marriage equality, and LGBTQ community resources.

California:

California is known for its welcoming environment for LGBTQ individuals and couples. The state legalized same-sex marriage early on and has strict anti-discrimination laws. Cities like San Francisco have vibrant LGBTQ communities and host large-scale pride events.

New York:

New York has a rich history of LGBTQ activism and a sizable LGBTQ population. The state legalized same-sex marriage in 2011 and has strong anti-discrimination laws. New York City, particularly neighborhoods like Chelsea and Greenwich Village, is known for its LGBTQ-friendly atmosphere and iconic landmarks.

Virginia:

Although not typically mentioned among LGBTQ-friendly states, Virginia has made significant progress recently. The Virginia Values Act protects LGBTQ individuals from discrimination, and the state has a growing LGBTQ community with events like Hampton Roads Pride and Virginia PrideFest.

Massachusetts:

Massachusetts holds the distinction of being the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004. It has a robust network of LGBTQ community centers, progressive anti-discrimination laws, and a vibrant LGBTQ tourism industry. Boston, in particular, has a thriving LGBTQ population.

Washington:

Washington state legalized same-sex marriage in 2012 and has enacted progressive legislation to protect LGBTQ rights. Seattle, in particular, has a strong LGBTQ community with ample resources and support services. The state is also known for its progressive politics and environmental activism.

It is important for LGBTQ couples to carefully consider their options and prioritize their needs when choosing a place to live or visit in the United States. The states mentioned above offer a welcoming environment, legal protections, vibrant LGBTQ communities, and an abundance of resources and support services.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE ORIGINAL BLOG

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑