Illinois Removes Trump From Primary Ballot, Gives Lawyers Until Friday to File Appeal
So stupid since SCOTUS is considering the Colorado case.
Cook County Circuit Judge Tracie Porter removed former President Donald Trump from Illinois’s primary ballot due to his supposed role on January 6.
Porter cited the Colorado Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 3, 14th Amendment “by using dictionaries from the time of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Porter examined the words office, officer, insurrection, engaged, and oath.
The court concluded “that the plain language and plain meanings of Section 3 apply to the former president now seeking to hold office again as the President of the United States.”
Do you really want to go down that route?
I’m biting my tongue a lot, but this is so stupid to do. Porter knows the Supreme Court is considering Trump’s case against Colorado. That state’s Supreme Court booted Trump from the primary ballot for the same reason.
Maine also kicked off Trump.
At least Porter put a stay on the order until Friday so lawyers can file an appeal.
In January, the Illinois Board of Elections voted 4-0 that Trump should stay on the ballot.
The Board said the decision should go through the courts “because of the complicated constitutional issues involved.”
However, Clark Erickson, a Republican retired judge, wrote in his opinion “that a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ presented proved that Trump engaged in insurrection and should be barred from the ballot.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sigh. At this point, their stupidity is just trying
Black people making other black people look stupid. The list is getting longer each day.
One of the theories is that you need a certain percentage of productive people to unproductive people to get a state to work, which ratio blacks fail to meet. Hence Africa and pretty much everywhere blacks are in charge. There are smart blacks but not enough to bear the freight the others cause.
It can’t in that case be discrimination, but you also have to account for why smart blacks don’t save the situation.
Botswana proves that this is not inevitable. A black country with a decent government and a low crime rate (though not as low as it was before the flood of refugees from Zimbabwe about 25 years ago); this example proves that it can be done, so why isn’t any other country doing it?
As the exception to the rule, I suppose the premise would be that Botswana’s intelligence and work ethic distribution doesn’t match the racial population at large.
I have no data for this argument but that would be the presumption if I were making the argument.
Milhouse – you always need to do second-level analysis:
Botswana’s economy is based on Diamond Mining.
The rich are rich, and the rest of the country ain’t.
“Botswana is currently one of the most unequal countries globally, having the 9th highest Gini coefficient, indicating the degree of inequality of incomes, according to the most recent UNDP report (2020). Both theoretical and empirical studies have shown the negative effect of inequality on long-run growth, poverty reduction, social and political stability. The issue of inequality in Botswana has received limited attention historically from both research and policy perspectives. “
https://www.undp.org/botswana/publications/inequality-botswana-analysis-drivers-and-district-level-mapping-select-dimensions-inequality
Income inequality is 12th in the world, and exceeds most African Countries on the Gini scale
The Gini Index is a measure of how equal a country’s distribution of income is. It is a score between 0 and 100. World Economics has inverted the source index data so that 0 represents very high inequality levels and 100 represents perfect equality
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Inequality/Gini-Coefficient/Botswana.aspx
In short, a few rich people in Botswana control the wealth
and take care of themselves.
Norway, another country with a “single source” of national wealth has a Gini score of 27.7
It is, generally, a mistake to put them in any positions of power.
A freaking Traffic court judge
When will some sorry ass Republican take Joe off of the ballot?
By the phrase “sorry ass” you’ve answered your own question.
Never happen! Joe just passed his physical with flying colors! His physician pronounced him fit as a fiddle. No cognitive test, however. When asked about that Joe had a good answer:
Reporter: Don’t you believe the person making the most important decisions for the entire country ought to have a cognitive test?
Biden: Yes I do. But Jill doesn’t want to take one.
I’m just curious of there is some Illinois elected Republican that will file a bar complaint against her.
Nope. No one goes up against the black mafia in Democrat run cities and states.
Oy, what a clown show this country has become. I’m so glad my Dad, who would have been 100 years old last week, didn’t live to see the country he went to the Pacific to fight for flush itself down the toilet.
Many and our parents generation, both here in the USA and did Great Britain, wonder why they bothered. I don’t blame them.
I also need to cease using speech to text when I have a headcold.
That’s okay. I wipe my computer with a cloth just like Hillary to keep the virus from spreading.
Dog bites man. Hardly makes headlines at this point. Blue state rule of law and protection of democracy. Ruin it to save it. No bigger fools. Obama will save them.
the judge is from the traffic division
From her bio: Judge Porter currently sits in the Traffic Division in the Richard J. Daley Center in downtown Chicago, where she presides over minor traffic violations and Class A Misdemeanor matters.
But, is she a biologist?
No, but she took cosmetology in High School.
That’s the study of moons and planets and stuff. Right?
I don’t know for sure. I heard it was a hairy subject, but they allow you to makeup for classes you missed. There is some biology included because they learn how to make corn rows.
Another racist removes the white man from the ballot.
Yeah. I said it.
Welcome to New South Africa.
Look at what black rule has doe to South Africa. They used to produce a surplus of food, now they don’t.
When he wins, he needs to have his AG launch a RICO investigation against the coordinate lawfare; those who perpetuated all these suits (including lawyers and judges and financiers) need to be punished so that this never happens again.
If there are no tribunals, they will just keep doing this.
Not just tribunals. Serious, merciless punishment. These people are far too dangerous and destructive to be allowed to roam free in any modern, civilized society. They are the worst sort of people there are. The worst. Nihilists. Just empty, sick, vindictive idiots who will never stop trying to make the rest of society as empty and miserable and deranged as they are as they look to destroy everything.
EXACTLY as I predicted.
All they needed was one state to do it, and a bunch of others would use that as the excuse to remove him from the ballot in their states, as well.
Liberals are nothing if not pathetically predictable.
No trial. No conviction. But guilty, nonetheless.
Even banana republics are embarrassed for the U.S.
Not even charges. That is how desperately pathetic the Democrat socialists have become.
And tyrants are saying “See! This is why too much freedom is bad.”
Neither charges nor a conviction is necessary. That should be obvious, since the section was originally written to keep Alexander Stephens out of Congress, and he was not only never charged but couldn’t be charged because he’d been pardoned. But the 14th amendment kept him out of Congress until the Amnesty of 1872.
There are at least six separate reasons why Trump is eligible to be president, but this is not one of them.
Punishment without trial, and you’re OK with it.
It’s not a punishment. It’s a disqualification, and as I just pointed out no trial was ever contemplated. Do you dispute that it was written to keep Stephens out of Congress, or that it did so until his disqualification was lifted in 1872? How do you explain that, if you think a trial and conviction would have been necessary?
And here comes Milhouse, right on cue, to let everyone know that the Democrats are absolutely right.
Again.
He just can’t help himself. When his leftist masters tug the leash, he jumps to do as told..
Here comes Azathoth, whose very name is demonic, lying and slandering to please his master, the Prince of Lies.
I see how that is a colorable argument, and many have made it. I wonder, though, how do we definitively conclude that someone has committed or incited an insurrection without a court ruling (civil or criminal) from the district and jurisdiction where it happened? (6A). And what should be the standard of proof, as insurrection and incitement to insurrection are federal crimes?
I don’t think a ruling from a Colorado state judge fills the bill, even if affirmed by that state’s supreme court.
The sixth amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions.
“We” don’t decide anything, any more than “we” decide whether a candidate is old enough, or has been a citizen long enough, or has lived in his state long enough. Whoever decides those things decides this too.
Remember that when the 14A was ratified there were no such thing as ballots, so the ratifiers weren’t thinking that states would keep ineligible candidates off them. Their intention was that if an ineligible candidate showed up in Washington to take up a seat in congress, the relevant chamber would refuse to seat him. For appointed offices, the senate would not confirm him, and if it did then someone with standing would challenge his appointment in court, the way that was done to 0bama’s invalid recess appointments. For state offices, it would either be handled by the state’s legislature and/or courts, or the federal courts would remove such officers.
Now that states print ballots, they each have procedures and laws on how to decide which candidates to list. For instance Colorado has a law that ineligible candidates can’t be put on the ballot; that’s the basis for the Colorado court’s decision. And Gorsuch, when he was a judge in Colorado, upheld that law.
It would seem to me that this makes it entirely a state’s business, except that I seem to recall some federal court decision that states, if they decide to print ballots, must list all eligible candidates. I don’t remember the basis for that decision, but if it’s valid then it follows that federal courts can override state decisions on eligibility.
I’m not sure how you live with yourself
It beats living with you.
Shays Rebellion was an insurrection.
The New York City Draft Riots were an insurrection.
The 1946 “Battle of Athens” (TN) was an insurrection.
The Whiskey Rebellion was an insurrection.
The Civil War was an insurrection.
January 6th was a two and a half hour protest.
The organized riots and looting of 2020 were insurrection attempts. The attempted seizure of American territory (and the granting of said territory by democrat office-holders and officials) was as bad as it can get. Everyone involved in that CHAZ lunacy (and the handful other attempts to copy that) was a clear traitor – including the governor and mayor and police chief and everyone in the dem party who gave any sort of aid and comfort to that effort or anyone involved in it.
Jan 6th was an official police-instigated mess (with much worse from the intelligent agencies, probably, as concerns the laughable fake pipe bombs) and the subsequent show trials have been an affront to the concept of the Rule of Law and decency.
I don’t think the draft riots were an insurrection. They weren’t trying to overturn the USA, they just didn’t want to be drafted.
The Battle of Athens was an insurrection only against the local government, not against the USA.
The 2020 riots in Portland were certainly an insurrection. So was the CHAZ in Seattle, and perhaps also the riot that burned down the police station in Minneapolis. The other riots that year one can argue about, but perhaps the best way is to look at the entire BLM movement as one nationwide insurrection.
See this?
This is the Democrat agreeing, appearing reasonable so that later when his leftist shrieking gets called out he can cite how he ‘agreed’ with us.
But you’ll notice that he still thinks January 6th was an insurrection.
‘Liar!’ he will cry, ‘I didn’t say that!’
But he did– when he says that Illinois CAN remove Trump without charges or conviction..
The Democrat thinks he’s still wearing his mask.
Correct.
If anyone even attempts to point out that Milhouse actually stated that he is a Democrat, or points out his hypocrisy, or questions his worldview, he immediately becomes unhinged and attacks that person.
You are both filthy liars. You know very well that I am not a Democrat, and that I have never stated that I am one, and yet you persist in telling this slanderous lie about me, over and over and over.
Azathoth, the demonic servant of the Prince of Lies, now comes up with a brand new one when he claims I think January 6th was an insurrection, when he knows that I have written at least 25 times in this forum that it was not. I have never said that or implied it, and Azathoth knows that very well.
The disqualification in 14A § 3 does not require a charge or a conviction. That is a simple matter of plain English and history. If someone who had once sworn an oath as, e.g. an Oregon legislator, were to have participated in the Portland riots and were then elected to congress, only the Amnesty of 1872 would save him from being ineligible.
“You know very well that I am not a Democrat, and that I have never stated that I am one,”
Except when you told everyone you were a registered Democrat because that was the only way to have your vote count.
In the same thread in which Fuzzy revealed that she, too,, had sipped the poisoned chalice.
You are completely insane. I stated, clearly, that I registered to vote as a Democrat in a Democrat-majority commonwealth (Massachusetts) because they have closed primaries. For anyone with a brain, this is the only way to have any influence at all in a blue state. There were no Republicans running for most offices, and the only way to have any say at all was to vote for the least insane Democrat in the primaries.
Registered as a Democrat in Massachusetts, I voted for John McCain (really for Sarah Palin, whose speech at the RNC literally had me on my feet and cheering in my living room) AND Mitt Romney (a vote I kind of regret since he’s such a POS), but I haven’t been a wide-eyed Democrat since I was a kid. I outgrew that long long ago, and your continued attacks on me are misguided and wrong-headed.
Since returning to my home state, now Free Florida, I have been a registered Republican, but not because I am a Republican (I’m really not, I’m a conservative constitutionalist) but because Florida is a closed primary state, and the only way I have a voice here is to vote in the primaries for the most conservative candidate available. Care to add my early years in Florida as a registered Republican and my current decade plus years as a registered Republican in Free Florida to your crazy rants? Of course not.
You are myopic, illogical, politically inept, and (I’ll just say it) stupid as hell. Everyone who has been here for years knows who I am, where I’ve been politically, and that I am super small-government constitutional conservative.
You don’t matter to me one bit, you got here a minute ago and are attacking people who are far more intelligent and politically savvy than you have ever been or have the mental capacity to ever be. You’re a cult member, a beta male licking on Trump’s privates, and it’s gross. I have long-standing views that Trump claims to have but then later admits he never intended to follow-through on, like locking up Hillary, deporting millions of illegals, building the wall, cutting government, and etc. He literally said he wanted Hillary to “heal” and laughed at his base, mocked them, for believing he’d build the wall and/or have Mexico pay for it. You people are disdained by Trump because you are useful idiot betas fawning at his feet. No one respects grown men (or women) who behave like worshiping zombies. Including, perhaps especially, the person they are fawning over. He thinks you are a joke. And you are.
People like you are just ridiculous liars. My question is why? Do you have to lie to make yourself feel better by attempting to discredit those who are clearly your intellectual betters? Those who have actual principles and stand for America? Because you are just disgracing yourself by lying about me (and Milhouse, for that matter). You, Azathoth, are a lying liar telling lies. And we all see you.
And Azathoth keeps lying again and again.
I have never written, hinted, or given anyone any reason to believe that I am a Democrat. I write that I am registered to vote in Democrat primaries. You know very well that that is not even remotely the same thing, and that this does not make someone a Democrat, any more than being registered to vote in Republican primaries makes someone a Republican.
The fact is that this Azathoth liar doesn’t seem to understand even the very basics of politics. You are not speaking to a person with even normal intelligence. This guy’s an idiot, Milhouse. There’s no polite way to say it. Sigh.
re: Draft Riots.
“Insurrection” is defined by 18 U.S. Code §2383:
The New York Draft riots were most certainly a rebellion against the laws of the government, specifically the laws instituted for calling of a militia under Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
re: Battle of New Orleans, “Insurrection” has another meaning other than the codified meaning held in the USC. “Insurrection” can also be “revolting” against the deprivation of rights by a duly authorized government – even at the state and local level. The issue here was voting fraud and other right depriving actions by the Sheriff and his political party. If you remember, the American Revolution was also called an “insurrection” even though the people were revolting against what they felt was the deprivation of their rights – even those at the individual state level. The Battle of Athens was a insurrection.
18 USC §2383 has nothing to do with 14A §3. It is not an implementation of that section. It does not define the word “insurrection”, and it certainly doesn’t define who is covered by that section.
18 USC §2383 creates a federal crime. It defines that crime as “rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof”. That is not what 14A §3 covers. 18 USC §2383 is both broader and narrower than 14A §3. It is not restricted to people who had previously sworn certain oaths, and it covers more actions. But on the other hand it only bans people convicted under it from appointed federal offices. It doesn’t ban them from elected office, or from appointed state office, and the reason it doesn’t is because Congress has no authority to do that.
Participants in the draft riots might well have been ruled to have violated 18 USC §2383, had it been in effect at that time, but it was not an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States, which is what 14A §3 requires. A former congressman who participated would not have thereby been disqualified from future congresses.
You are missing the point.
We have a definition of “insurrection.” You are free to argue against that definition, but it is a definition nonetheless.
18 USC §2383 is the definition of “insurrection.”
14A §3 is a consequence of “insurrection.”
Furthermore, you were the one who said the New York Draft Riots were not an insurrection when they clearly were as the legislature, under the Constitution has the power to raise an army. The riots prevented or at the very least interfered with that Constitutional ability.
There is no way that a person can argue that preventing a Constitutionally legal act is not against the Constitution itself.
Nice try at shifting the goalposts though.
No, gitarcarver, 18 USC §2383 does not even attempt to define “insurrection.” It uses that word, assuming that you already understand it. And it punishes insurrections “against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof”. 14A§3 also uses the word without defining it, but it specifies insurrections against “the constitution of the united states”.
The definition of “insurrection”, which is not provided in either sources, is an attempt to overthrow something by force. So 14A§3 only applies to attempts to overthrow the constitution, which the NY draft riots were not trying to do. Likewise the riots were not trying to overthrow the authority or laws of the united states, they were merely protesting one specific law; so they were not covered by 18 USC §2383 either, but even if they were that would be irrelevant to 14A§3.
The Portland riots, on the other hand, were an open and explicit attempt to overthrow the authority of the United States. They had no realistic chance of success, but that is what they were explicitly trying for. In that way they resembled the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay’s Rebellion, and of course the Confederacy.
I thought it was spelled infestation, silly me.
Unarmed protest.
Traitor Joe is guilty of actual treason (along with the rest of the democrats – orchestrating an invasion of America which is “waging war on this nation”). They should all be removed from every ballot put on criminal trial.
Democrats have committed many more treasonous acts than just the invasion of America … but how many different acts of treason are needed? It’s a capital offense.
State judges are declaring Trump guilty of federal crimes the federal government has not charged. Maybe they need to be reminded to stay in their lane, after they are lectured on the concept of due process.
Nope. The 14th amendment’s disqualification clause is not a criminal penalty, and there is no right to due process because being listed on a ballot is neither life, liberty, nor property.
These judges may be out of their league, but they’re not out of their lane.
Seems like there’s a pretty big liberty interest being denied when an otherwise qualified Citizen is refused ballot access. Especially for a mainstream candidate b/c then the very large number of supporters of the candidate are being denied their ability to vote for the candidate of their choice so now the attack on liberty is far wider than one person.
That’s right. Even the part-timer at the FedEx/Kinkos can keep anyone off the ballot on a whim. No moral hazards there.
The Supreme Court has said that one way a person or group of people may “seek redress” from the government is to run a candidate that aligns with their views.
When someone says that a person who is Constitutional qualified to run for office may not appear on the ballot without any conviction or evidence, that is most certainly a deprivation of the rights not only of the person, but the people.
When rights or fettered without any hearing or trial, that is the definition of a lack of due process.
She’s a Traffic judge
The Judiciary is becoming the new FBI. They are willing to throw away their credibility to get Trump. The Judges need to start self policing or the public will throw them all into the same ‘crooked’ bucket.
Too late. We already have.
Marxists keep pulling on DJT and no adult seems to want to stop these teenagers.Even the Judge in the 1/2 billion dollar scam only sidestep the situation.
Is this a joke? The Democrats find some low-ranking traffic judge to make a major ruling that removes a candidate from the statewide ballot, and they think they’ve accomplished something? This will do more damage to the their lawfare strategy than anything previous.
I’m actually shocked GWB and Obama haven’t both been indicted. GWB committed war crimes in office by authorizing torture. Obama authorized clandestine domestic spying operations on US citizens. If presidents and ex presidents can be indicted for actions taken while president, these actions surely warrant prosecution. Or, perhaps, the constitutional remedy for illegal acts committed by presidents is impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. Hopefully, that’s how the SCOTUS rules.
What torture? Water boarding? Thr act so horrific leftists did it to each other in the streets?
A simple statement from the Supreme Court could put this stupid judge’s decision in its place: Removal of a major candidate from the Presidential ballot is cause to declare the electors for that state invalid.
Yet to the same judges, when it comes to ‘plain language and plain meanings’, the Second Amendment is twisted and pulverized to be interpreted as our right to hunt deer once a year with a single-shot muzzle loader shall not be infringed.
Don’t forget the environmentally safe non-lead bullets and the free-range naturally sourced powder-of-indeterminate-color that can only be purchased at government stores… Well, *store* in Washington DC which is open for three hours a year by appointment only with proper identification, a correct social media score, and letters of recommendation from ten bureaucrats, eight of which are on vacation and one of which has been dead for twenty years.
They can not stop the people from doing a write in vote. They must count those votes. I have seen a write in campaigns win on at least six elections in my years.
The horribly unqualified Lisa Murkowski comes to mind. Then, as now, helped along by corrupt judges.
There’s no such thing as a write-in vote in presidential elections. How would it work? Which candidates for elector would you be voting for? Or would you have to write in all of their names?
Then again, 14A §3 doesn’t apply to the presidency either, which is just one of the many reasons Trump is eligible.
Look, I know it’s reflexive for you to write some “nuh uh!” comment in response to virtually everything, but write-in votes are allowed on a state-by-state basis. How they are handled varies, but it’s not true that there’s “no such thing.”
https://www.usa.gov/write-in-candidates
You just beclowned yourself. You ignored Milhouse’s questions and demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the electoral college.
Supposing that this holds, and a state does exclude Trump from the ballot, first of all Trump might simply accept that verdict and use it as a campaign issue elsewhere. It’s not as if he has any chance to win such a state. So why should he care that he’s not on the ballot? But his absence from it would be a powerful campaign issue in states that he can win.
Second, if he wants the voters in those states to have a chance to express their support for him, the path to that is very simple: The Republican Party simply puts up a slate of electors for “Republican Candidate”, to be named after the election. Every state has a provision under which electors pledged to one candidate can switch to another one if the first one becomes unavailable, e.g. through death or resignation. When you vote for electors, you also vote for a vacancy committee that can fill vacancies, both in the electoral slate itself and at the top of the ticket. So they could use that to choose Trump after they are elected as electors, in the unlikely event that that were to happen.
IL is a shithole. Dominated by government unions. Confiscatory property taxes to pay teachers who don’t teach for most part. Seventy or more schools without a single student testing at grade level in math or reading.
The Democrat Communist Criminal Terrorist Organization of America, WILL NOT WIN THIS ONE.