14th has its day in court tomorrow

[Delldude]

Here you go. SCOTUS will hear arguments tomorrow. No indication how quickly they will comment. This will be fun to watch as it unfolds.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday in what is shaping up to be the biggest election case since its ruling nearly 25 years ago in Bush v. Gore. At issue is whether former President Donald Trump, who is once again the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, can be excluded from the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

Although the question comes to the court in a case from Colorado, the impact of the court’s ruling could be much more far-reaching. Maine’s secretary of state ruled in December that Trump should be taken off the primary ballot there, and challenges to Trump’s eligibility are currently pending in 11 other states. Trump warns that the efforts to keep him off the ballot “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans” and “promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead.” But the voters challenging Trump’s eligibility counter that “we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost.”

Supreme Court to decide whether insurrection provision keeps Trump off ballot - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on Feb. 5 at 11:36 a.m. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday in what is shaping up to be the biggest election case since its ruling nearly 25 years ago in Bush v. Gore. At issue is whether former President Donald Trump, who is once again the front runner

www.scotusblog.com

 

[forkup]

Here you go. SCOTUS will hear arguments tomorrow. No indication how quickly they will comment. This will be fun to watch as it unfolds.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday in what is shaping up to be the biggest election case since its ruling nearly 25 years ago in Bush v. Gore. At issue is whether former President Donald Trump, who is once again the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, can be excluded from the ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.

Although the question comes to the court in a case from Colorado, the impact of the court’s ruling could be much more far-reaching. Maine’s secretary of state ruled in December that Trump should be taken off the primary ballot there, and challenges to Trump’s eligibility are currently pending in 11 other states. Trump warns that the efforts to keep him off the ballot “threaten to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans” and “promise to unleash chaos and bedlam if other state courts and state officials follow Colorado’s lead.” But the voters challenging Trump’s eligibility counter that “we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost.”

Supreme Court to decide whether insurrection provision keeps Trump off ballot - SCOTUSblog

This article was updated on Feb. 5 at 11:36 a.m. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday in what is shaping up to be the biggest election case since its ruling nearly 25 years ago in Bush v. Gore. At issue is whether former President Donald Trump, who is once again the front runner

www.scotusblog.com

Not so sure it'll be all that much fun. Regardless of the ultimate decision. One of the sides will feel the courts are putting their thumbs on the scale for fascism.

Trump is removed. Republicans will feel the courts and Democrats are taking away their right to vote.

Trump isn't removed. Democrats will feel SCOTUS is refusing to adhere to the law in favor of someone who wanted to prevent the person they voted for from taking office.

Either way, the justice system is fucked.



Note, I'm purposefully not taking a position on where I land. Although I have my preference.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Should take about ten minutes.

 

[Delldude]

Either way, the justice system is fucked.

Justice will prevail.

 

[Hossfly]

 

[BluesLegend]

We'll see, I haven't been impressed with the other two branches of government since the Biden regime squatted in the White House.

 

[toobfreak]

But the voters challenging Trump’s eligibility counter that “we already saw the ‘bedlam’ Trump unleashed when he was on the ballot and lost.”

Not true. That election was held way unlike any other in history, with several swing states violating their own state laws in counting what were by definition illegal ballots, then the day after the election, they were already calling all questions about the election baseless while the government worked with Big Tech to illegally silence all criticism, then they tried to criminalize questioning the election, making that "bedlam" actually all democrat's doing.

 

[forkup]

Justice will prevail.

Maybe. The question is if justice prevailing is by definition a good thing?

If justice prevails and in the process half the country reject the courts legitimacy for decades after. Did justice really prevail?


There's such a thing as winning a battle but losing the war. My point is, that it's not as simple as it might seem.

 

[BluesLegend]

Not true. That election was held way unlike any other in history, with several swing states violating their own state laws in counting what were by definition illegal ballots, then the day after the election, they were already calling all questions about the election baseless while the government worked with Big Tech to illegally silence all criticism, then they tried to criminalize questioning the election, making that "bedlam" actually all democrat's doing.

Dems will never admit to RIGGING and CHEATING in 2020 under the cover of Covid. Absolute lawlessness.

 

[Delldude]

Not true.

To them it is and it's all that counts.

 

[Delldude]

If justice prevails and in the process half the country reject the courts legitimacy for decades after. Did justice really prevail?

R v W? Yes it did.

Go by the rules, you never go wrong.

 

[toobfreak]

since the Biden regime squatted in the White House.

So THAT is what they've been doing!

 

[forkup]

R v W? Yes it did.

Go by the rules, you never go wrong.

So, just so we are clear. You will accept any ruling towards Trump as by definition justified, since the judicial branch is the ultimate decider on the meaning of the law? That's the rules.

 

[toobfreak]

Dems will never admit to RIGGING and CHEATING in 2020 under the cover of Covid.

Actually, they DID.

Time expose spotlights ‘shadow campaign’ that ‘saved’ 2020 election: ‘They were fortifying it’

An expose by Time magazine confirms the existence of a vast and powerful network that worked to ensure the “proper outcome” of the 2020 presidential election.

www.washingtontimes.com

The 2020 Election - Time Mag Story and the Quest for Power

Like many, I read the Time Magazine story, " The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election." by Molly Ball, and was astonished. The story unfolds a couple of years before the…

ricochet.com

Time Magazine Bombshell: The 'Shadow Campaign' That 'Saved' The 2020 Election

Time magazine published a bombshell report Thursday that reveals how a network of groups with ties to the Democrat party worked to ensure the “proper outcome” to the 2020 presidential election. Time: “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” National Political...

wibc.com

Time report touts 'cabal of of powerful people' behind 'conspiracy,' 'shadow campaign' to shape election

A report published by Time magazine Friday has delved into a "secret shadow campaign" that, in the publication's words, "saved the 2020 election."

www.foxnews.com

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions

time.com

They name names, places, dates, methods and contributors.

The Big Lie is that the Big Steal was the truth.

 

[Delldude]

So, just so we are clear. You will accept any ruling towards Trump as by definition justified, since the judicial branch is the ultimate decider on the meaning of the law? That's the rules.

Tell me why wouldn't you?

Going by and interpreting the Constitution bother you for some reason?

That is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court.

 

[forkup]

Tell me why wouldn't you?

Going by and interpreting the Constitution bother you for some reason?

That is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court.

I already did. Let me quote Jefferson.

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
Or Justice William O. Jackson

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not sure were the line lies. I do think there is one, when it comes to balancing between interpreting the Constitution and simply being practical.

 

[Billiejeens]

Nothing is ever for sure, but the notion that the Supreme Court would prevent the leading candidate from running for president and deny voters the choice is absurd. This is especially true under Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to keep the court out of political fights. That's why he allowed Obamacare.

 

[Billiejeens]

Not true. That election was held way unlike any other in history, with several swing states violating their own state laws in counting what were by definition illegal ballots, then the day after the election, they were already calling all questions about the election baseless while the government worked with Big Tech to illegally silence all criticism, then they tried to criminalize questioning the election, making that "bedlam" actually all democrat's doing.

This, of course.
All of this.

 

[forkup]

Nothing is ever for sure, but the notion that the Supreme Court would prevent the leading candidate from running for president and deny voters the choice is absurd. This is especially true under Chief Justice John Roberts, who has sought to keep the court out of political fights. That's why he allowed Obamacare.

Trump isn't removed. Democrats will feel SCOTUS is refusing to adhere to the law in favor of someone who wanted to prevent the person they voted for from taking office.

The moment they took the case they inserted themselves in a political fight.

 

[Billiejeens]

Maybe. The question is if justice prevailing is by definition a good thing?

If justice prevails and in the process half the country reject the courts legitimacy for decades after. Did justice really prevail?


There's such a thing as winning a battle but losing the war. My point is, that it's not as simple as it might seem.

The November Coup pretty much made the county and a lot of the world question the legitimacy of the US system.
It will be really difficult to repair that.