Supreme Court Poised to Rule on Monday on Trump’s Eligibility to Hold Office

I'm hoping tomorrow's announcement is about the Colorado SC decision. I would like to see the justices of the USSC go 9-0 in favor of over ruling them, but my prediction is the final score will be 8-1.

 

Does anyone find it interesting how they fast tracked the case on eligibility to be on the primary ballots from rulings that were automatically stayed and thus wouldn’t impact any election but they are slow walking the claim of if presidents enjoy complete immunity so they cannot be ruled on until after the election?

Almost like they didn’t like the polls showing the trump would lose 30% of his voters if he was convicted in a court of law…

 

I think it'll be 9-0. Even Liberals can't risk the idea of reviving a liberal interpretation of States rights(because they always get their asses kicked at the 'lower' level, and bitch about it afterward LMAO)

 

It's not "almost like they don't like", it's clearly that they have to protect their "daddy".

 

His lawyers argued he’d have to first be convicted of insurrection, then made it clear that’s not even possible because he wasn’t impeached and removed for insurrection. GOP is really pushing us towards an imperial presidency.

 

Are his lawyers wrong?

 

Are they wrong that impeachment is required to charge a president? Yes, yes they are. Ford and Nixon knew it. Clinton knew it.

 

I meant the part about being convicted of an insurrection.

 

Sticks out like the proverbial canine testicles!

 

Yes. (And BTW...Off Topic.)

 

Sounds about right.

 

I think requiring he be convicted certainly makes some sense, but saying if he’s not impeached he can’t be charged is ridiculous

 

4 Colorado justices decided to take Trump off the ballot when he has no convictions at all. Do you think that's right? The same argument can be made that Biden is a traitor because he allowed millions of unknown people into this this country and he should be removed from the ballot - but I'd rather he stay on it.

 

6-3

Whoever dissents needs to be removed. Literally the easiest question in history to be decided by the SC.

 

say what you want about the court-it is obvious that they make their decisions based on what they think is right -rather than trying to help the GOP. If helping the GOP was their goal, the Dobbs case was issued at the worst possible time-on top of being a decision most likely to help the dems

 

The amendment doesn’t say “traitor” it’s pretty specific. And it doesn’t say conviction is required and nobody thought it was for the confederates. But I agree just letting states do this is dangerous. Just not sure it’s more dangerous than trump holding office again.

 

Can you find me the article of law that stipulates that the candidate must have been convicted of insurrection to be disqualified?

That being said, if SCOTUS rejects the Colorado decision, it will have nothing to do with your argument.

 

I provided my thoughts about it in this thread:
The Constitutionality and Legality of States Banning Trump from the Ballot (Feb 11, 2024)

The legality and Constitutional implications are more complicated than most people on this forum are willing to wrap their brain around, either Pro-Trump or against.

 

So without a trial and just stories in the news, 4 people can disqualify someone from being on a ballot. Doesn't that slightly hint at the fascism and threats to democracy the left literally campaigns on?

 

Technically, the U.S. Constitution says states are supposed to decide.

But in reality, how things have come to operate now, "states" do not really decide. The state governments have abrogated their legal powers to certain designated state officials to run elections and determine the winner.

But when the integrity of those elections is in doubt, it raises some Constitutional issues.

It's actually part of a much wider issue of legislatures delegating away their legal powers to other officials. There are plenty of questions whether that is truly appropriate and legal.

It gets even more dicey and complicated when powerful state judges interfere in an election, making it arguably unfair, but the law directs the state's Secretary of State to certify the results from that election regardless.
Probably and arguably not what those state lawmakers who originally passed the law setting up the system had in mind.

 

Sotomayor is the wildcard. She’s not very bright herself and it seems like she has weak clerks.

 

There’s always the their/them gal who doesn’t know what a women is.

 

Stop your fake outrage, you're voting for a guy who admires the worst dictators and talks about them in almost all his rallies.

As far as disqualification is concerned, SCOTUS is due to issue a ruling on the matter.

We wouldn't have believed it in 250 years, because no POTUS has ever tried to prevent his duly elected successor from taking office.

The irony is that if Trump had succeeded in illegally preventing the transition of power, you'd be a happy man today!

 

Sigh. Section 3 doesn’t apply to the President and never has. Why spread misinformation?

 

Her questions were pretty direct and told the Colorado attorney that he was opposing our democracy… something many insurrectionists in this thread continue to do through misinformation and partisan propaganda.