Supreme Court says it will decide if Trump qualifies for Colorado ballet

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Trump is thinking...

“Dang, I’m glad I packed that Court”.

It will be interesting to see who votes to let Colorado have their way. Does each Justice also have to write a paper explaining why they voted the way they did?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: watchitburn

So far every judge that has had a 14th Amendment case before then has ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection. The ones that have ruled Trump is still eligible have done so on procedural grounds.

Biden and the left can say insurrection but there's this silly thing called "Innocent until proven guilty" and so far, of all the 9018375 charges the left has thrown against Trump, none have been for insurrection.

a reply to: Dandandat3

a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally
prohibited from assuming office.

Neil Gorsuch, 2012

Kavanaugh has also written scholarly articles that would indicate he would rule on the side of the state in a situation like this. Granted, Kavanugh's previous words are no indication on how he'll rule in the President, but there's a reason Habba singled him out today.

a reply to: JinMI

It's a civil case, not a criminal case. Trump's criminal history has no bearing.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I say not so fast. If SCOTUS allows Trump to stay on all the ballets, then Schumer is going to threaten to cut their budget, but if SCOTUS rules to allow states to remove Trumps name, then the Right will just write him in.

Though this riot thing might be possible if Trump didn't already promise to give the FBI: "Till all are RIOT" a new office complex. Antifa and BLM/H Pro-Hummus/Anti-Americans can't riot if the FBI isn't involved somehow.

WHAT gives Democrats hope that the Supreme Court will uphold Colorado's ruling/decision? The CBS Evening News is really building this up as their top story! Wow.

originally posted by: pianopraze
Washington Post

It’s paywalled so I can’t get a quote.

Here is from Twitter: Link

So I’m not big Trump fan, but what the Democrats are doing is disgusting and this needs to be stoped here and now.

Glad the Supreme Court is going to hear this case.

Hope it stops this lawfare nonsense.

We need to make sure Dominion chooses our elected leaders, fair and square!
/sarcasm

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

It's a civil case, not a criminal case. Trump's criminal history has no bearing.

Irrelevant.

It's his civil liberty to run for office.

Are you advocating for removal of liberties based on allegations? I don't think you are......except for Trump.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Dandandat3

a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally
prohibited from assuming office.

Neil Gorsuch, 2012

Kavanaugh has also written scholarly articles that would indicate he would rule on the side of the state in a situation like this. Granted, Kavanugh's previous words are no indication on how he'll rule in the President, but there's a reason Habba singled him out today.

Except there is zero proof that Trump is constitutionally prohibited.....

a reply to: Guyfriday

The headline says SCOTUS will rule on the Colorado case. Afterwards they take up the MAINE ruling?

a reply to: WeMustCare

They can. Usually you'll see a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion. You'll sometimes get more opinions if a Justice agrees or disagrees with a ruling but for different reasons than the other Justices.

Let me say this again:

Removing Trump from the ballot because he "engaged in insurrection" is like driving a car down the highway. Each state that joins in the effort causes you to go faster and faster. They get so giddy from the speed rush (Trump hatred) that they fail to see the brick wall across the road that is the Supreme Court.


This country will be more split than it ever has been based on this ruling. Whichever way it goes. I now believe that we are most likely headed for civil war.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

It's a civil case, not a criminal case. Trump's criminal history has no bearing.

Irrelevant.

It's his civil liberty to run for office.

Are you advocating for removal of liberties based on allegations? I don't think you are......except for Trump.

That wouldn't work. Barack would have been removed for being (supposedly) born in Kenya.

originally posted by: pianopraze
a reply to: JinMI

It’s become a Tribal fight… almost literally.

Logic has very little to do with anything Political these days.

We are truly entertaining dark times. American Totalitarianism is looming on the horizon and people are chearing it on because they foolishly think they are going to be on the ruling side. How pitifully surprised they will be when they realize they are under boot right along side the people they once called their political enemies.

a reply to: RickinVa

Based on the ruling, states can also omit anyone else from a ballot arbitrarily.


What if so many are banned, that no one can reach the 270?

There are so many far reaching implications that should this stand, it would result in immediate societal breakdown.

a reply to: JinMI

The Constitution states someone that participated in an insurrection is ineligible to hold office. It has no provisions stating an indictment is required. Every judge has ruled Trump participated in insurrection. Ergo, he is prohibited from holding office per the Constitution.

As I've said though, there are procedural arguments that can be made. And that's what this case is going to come down to.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Right, we're supposed to believe that the most heavily armed demographic in the history of planet Earth showed up to overthrow the most heavily armed and most well defended government in the history of planet Earth and for some reason forgot to bring any guns.

You'd have to be a complete window licking retard to believe that.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Dandandat3

a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally
prohibited from assuming office.

Neil Gorsuch, 2012

Kavanaugh has also written scholarly articles that would indicate he would rule on the side of the state in a situation like this. Granted, Kavanugh's previous words are no indication on how he'll rule in the President, but there's a reason Habba singled him out today.

a reply to: Dandandat3

You're a deep thinker. I'm still trying to comprehend what you said, lol.

a reply to: Threadbarer

The Constitution states someone that participated in an insurrection is ineligible to hold office.

Good. Great. Now prove he participated in insurrection.......

It has no provisions stating an indictment is required.

Then why on Earth is it a statute passed by congress as is addressed in section 5 of the 14th amendment? Your logic is broken.

Ergo, he is prohibited from holding office per the Constitution.

You missed the entire point of not only an impeachment but of criminal statutes......

As I've said though, there are procedural arguments that can be made. And that's what this case is going to come down to.

And as I've said, there's nothing compelling about removing liberties without due process.

a reply to: watchitburn

Are you aware of the plans that the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys had? There's a reason they're serving time for seditious conspiracy.