Colorado Dems are trying to kick Trump off the ballot and deny voters the opportunity to vote for him. Judge Samour delivered a scathing dissent.
courts.state.co.us
First on the violations of the due process:
I have been involved in the justice system for 33 years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom. In my experience, in our adversarial system of justice, parties are always allowed to conduct discovery, subpoena documents and compel witnesses, and adequately prepare for trial, and experts are never permitted to usurp the role of the judge by opining on how the law should be interpreted and applied More:
The proceedings were a procedural Frankenstein created by stitching together fragments from Colorado law and remnants of traditional civil trial practice. Even with the unauthorized statutory alterations made by the district court, the aggressive deadlines and procedures used nevertheless stripped the proceedings of many basic protections that normally accompany a civil trial, never mind a criminal trial.
There was no basic discovery, no ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses, no workable timeframes to adequately investigate and develop defenses, and no final resolution of many legal issues affecting the court’s power to decide the Electors’ claim before the hearing on the merits.
There was no fair trial either: President Trump was not offered the opportunity to request a jury of his peers; experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law, including as it relates to the interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment generally and Section Three specifically; and the court received and considered a partial congressional report, the admissibility of which is not beyond reproach." Then he gets to the point about violation of basic Constitutional law:
"When the enforcement power of a punitive constitutional mandate is delegated to Congress in such unequivocal terms, it would appear decidedly outside the judicial bailiwick to furnish the scaffolding that only 'appropriate legislation' can supply.
Because the Constitution gives this job to Congress, and only Congress, I consider it equally improper—indeed, constitutionally impossible—for state legislatures, in the absence of federal legislation, to create pseudo causes of action pursuant to Section Three’s disqualification clause. This is precisely what the framers sought to prevent."
"There is zero authority permitting state legislatures to do that which, though delegated to it, Congress has declined to do."
Tom |
