SCOTUS to hear arguments on keeping Trump off 2024 ballot

[Auld Phart]

While they clearly overlap, “sedition” centers more on plotting and incitement, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.

Seditious conspiracy: 11 Oath Keepers charged in Jan. 6 riot​

, whereas “insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.

when was he involved in 'violent acts aimed at overthrowing the government'?

 

[toobfreak]

SCOTUS to hear arguments on keeping Trump off 2024 ballot​

There IS no constitutional legal argument. Biden has done far more to deserve being left off the ballot than anyone! People have been convicted of sedition and still were allowed to run for office from prison!

 

[Lisa558]

The Colorado Supreme Court agreed that Trump engaged in an insurrection, but ruled that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does, in fact, apply to the presidency, meaning that Trump could not appear on the ballot. Dec 20, 2023

They can’t just declare he did it without due process. Trump will be on the ballot, and very likely will win the election.

 

[Crepitus]

High-stakes case on whether 14th amendment prohibits Trump from holding office because of his actions on January 6, 2021.

The US supreme court will hear oral argument on Thursday in one of the most high-stakes cases in American politics this century, thrusting a beleaguered court to the center of the 2024 election.

The court is considering whether Donald Trump is eligible to run for president. The novel legal question at the heart of the case, Donald J Trump v Norma Anderson et al, is whether the 14th amendment to the constitution prohibits Trump from holding office because of his conduct on 6 January 2021. Section 3 of the amendment says that any member of Congress or officer of the United States who takes an oath to protect the constitution and then subsequently engages in insurrection cannot hold office. That ban, the amendment says, can only be overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.

There is no precedent for the case. The 14th amendment, enacted after the civil war, has never been used to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate, but the idea began picking up steam after two conservative legal scholars published a 126-page law review article last summer arguing the amendment clearly disqualified Trump.

A group of Colorado voters sued under the law last year, relying on the theory to try to disqualify Trump from the ballot. After a five-day trial, a Colorado district court judge said Trump had committed insurrection, but was not disqualified because he was not an officer of the United States. The Colorado supreme court reversed that ruling in December, removing Trump from the ballot in a 4-3 decision. While lawsuits have been filed in dozens of other states seeking to remove Trump from the ballot, only Colorado and Maine have done so thus far.

The challengers and their supporters argue that protecting democracy requires banning those who attempt to subvert democracy from holding higher office. “Our democracy is not a chaotic free-for-all in which anyone can be elected. The voters are entitled to decide within the framework of the applicable rules,” the good government group Common Cause wrote in an amicus brief supporting the challengers.

“If Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Section 3”) is not enforced in this case, there is a genuine risk that our system of government will not survive,” they wrote.

More at the link below...

US supreme court to hear arguments on keeping Trump off 2024 ballot​

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:00 am tomorrow morning (2-8-24). This is truly historical. I'm looking forward to it. What do you think?

I think this means it's now up to Harlan Crow and the other supreme court justice's handlers.

Which is, frankly, terrifying.

 

[Winston]

Which court was it that convicted Trump of insurrection?...

He doesn't have to be convicted of insurrection.

If anyone thinks the 14th amendment's third clause is only about the Civil War, they are wrong. Let me give you a history lesson, no charge, this time.

Do you really think Trump, and his minions, came up with the whole idea of a fake slate of electors, of the VP refusing to certify the results, all on their own? Do you really think that Trump's refusal to secede the election, or the attempt to prevent an elected president from taking office, has never happened in American History, until now? Well, you are wrong.

Just google "John B Floyd". Damn, I swear, American History ought to be started in the first grade and it should take up at least a third of the damn day. Our nation would be in a much better position if we understood just where we have been. I was the sole undergraduate student in a 400 level history class, taking it as an elective, and the professor turns to me and asks, "What the hell are you doing here?". I don't miss a beat, and in my best slow Southern drawl I respond, "How the hell can I predict where this nation is going if I don't know where it has been". The class erupts, jumping up and down and high fiving me.

But back to Floyd, from an Amicus Brief filed in the case,

In the weeks after Lincoln’s election in early November 1860, Floyd used the great powers of his office through a devious combination of affirmative acts and strategic failures to act, to try to thwart a proper transition of power

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf

I have said it before, and that is just one amicus brief filed, there are others filed by historians. They all call on the court to affirm the Colorado decision. This is the SCOTUS come to Jesus moment. If they reverse the Colorado decision they remove all doubt, they are a partisan bunch of hacks and every damn one of them should be removed. I mean I will make my predictions, Thomas will vote to reverse, but he is a total damn dumbass that is obviously bought and paid for. Kavanaugh will vote to reverse, but he has been a Republican operative from day one. I see a 7-2 decision to affirm. Barret being a wild card that might make in 6-3. But, if I am wrong, and this case is not affirmed, then the gig is up, democracy is dead, and we have suddenly found ourselves in a despotic government with no clear way out.

 

[Lakhota]

Per CNN: Trump is not expected to attend the ballot hearing tomorrow.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Exactly! Let's see if SCOTUS upholds the Constitution.

They will and you will be whining yet again.

 

[Lisa558]

Per CNN: Trump is not expected to attend the ballot hearing tomorrow.

What? The Dems scheduled the hearing for the same day as the Nevada caucus, hoping to throw a wrench into the campaign and keep him off the trail??

Glad he didn’t succumb to the Dems’ tricky moves to interfere with the election.

 

[Rambunctious]

He doesn't have to be convicted of insurrection.

If anyone thinks the 14th amendment's third clause is only about the Civil War, they are wrong. Let me give you a history lesson, no charge, this time.

Do you really think Trump, and his minions, came up with the whole idea of a fake slate of electors, of the VP refusing to certify the results, all on their own? Do you really think that Trump's refusal to secede the election, or the attempt to prevent an elected president from taking office, has never happened in American History, until now? Well, you are wrong.

Just google "John B Floyd". Damn, I swear, American History ought to be started in the first grade and it should take up at least a third of the damn day. Our nation would be in a much better position if we understood just where we have been. I was the sole undergraduate student in a 400 level history class, taking it as an elective, and the professor turns to me and asks, "What the hell are you doing here?". I don't miss a beat, and in my best slow Southern drawl I respond, "How the hell can I predict where this nation is going if I don't know where it has been". The class erupts, jumping up and down and high fiving me.

But back to Floyd, from an Amicus Brief filed in the case,

In the weeks after Lincoln’s election in early November 1860, Floyd used the great powers of his office through a devious combination of affirmative acts and strategic failures to act, to try to thwart a proper transition of power

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf

I have said it before, and that is just one amicus brief filed, there are others filed by historians. They all call on the court to affirm the Colorado decision. This is the SCOTUS come to Jesus moment. If they reverse the Colorado decision they remove all doubt, they are a partisan bunch of hacks and every damn one of them should be removed. I mean I will make my predictions, Thomas will vote to reverse, but he is a total damn dumbass that is obviously bought and paid for. Kavanaugh will vote to reverse, but he has been a Republican operative from day one. I see a 7-2 decision to affirm. Barret being a wild card that might make in 6-3. But, if I am wrong, and this case is not affirmed, then the gig is up, democracy is dead, and we have suddenly found ourselves in a despotic government with no clear way out.

Yes he does have to be convicted of it or it never happened... and the 14th amendment won't apply...

 

[Lakhota]

My guesses as to what the SCOTUS outcome will be:

1. They will abide by the Constitution and prohibit Trump from being on any state ballots for president.

2. The SCOTUS NaziCons will twist the Constitution and feed us a crock of bullshit as to why Trump should remain on all state ballots for president.

 

[Rambunctious]

They will abide by the Constitution and prohibit Trump from being on any state ballots for president

How would that be constitutional?...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump will win this one, but he will not recover the immunity claim, which is fine by me.

 

[Lakhota]

Trump will win this one, but he will not recover the immunity claim, which is fine by me.

Sadly, I agree! I think the SCOTUS NaziCons will twist themselves into pretzels to keep Trump on all state ballots for president. I also think they will do great harm to their legacies and SCOTUS overall. Sad...

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which court was it that convicted Trump of insurrection?...

Which section of the 14th Amendment says that a conviction is necessary?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

when was he involved in 'violent acts aimed at overthrowing the government'?

From election day until Jan 6

 

[Lakhota]

If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, and he is later convicted of insurrection - what then?

 

[Lisa558]

If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, and he is later convicted of insurrection - what then?

Let’s cross that bridge if we come to it. In the meantime, it’s been three years and he’s never even been CHARGED with it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Which section of the 14th Amendment says that a conviction is necessary?

It doesn't but SCOTUS will say that is the suggestion and spirit of Section 3.

The argument will be that we cannot have a patch make up of the several states setting different stand.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, and he is later convicted of insurrection - what then?

It won't change anything, because I think SCOTUS is going to have to say you need a conviction.

 

[Rambunctious]

Which section of the 14th Amendment says that a conviction is necessary?

You can't be guilty of something just because your political rivals thing you might be... where would that stop... and that's the question the supreme court will ask itself....