14th has its day in court tomorrow

[Billiejeens]

The SCOTUS will issue a very narrow ruling -

Probably that the amendment doesn't pertain to The President.

 

[Curried Goats]

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.

You do remember the Supreme Court being so dismissive of those claims that they refused to even hear Trump's case right...?

 

[Mac-7]

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

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 B…

www.scotusblog.com

Why does the high court need to hear arguments?

Dont they already know the answer in advance?

Since its assumed that there is only one correct answer to every legal question we really dont need the dog and pony show that judges engage in

 

[22lcidw]

What are the times we are living though? Is the Supreme Court following law which is also not so pinpoint on matters of an executive nature, or are they following pure political smearing and attempted destruction of a former president and potential one again? The power of the political class is more than any in history. It has the security agencies to protect them to do what they wish. And in return keep them as unelected despots, powerful and with much influence behind the scenes.

 

[forkup]

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.

What coup? Do you mean the valid, certified election that was challenged in court, and when those challenges were dismissed further challenged by extralegal means including a violent storming of the Capitol?

It does kind of make my point though. The moment SCOTUS decided to hear the case (not that they really had a choice) they inserted themselves into a fight that will end up with one side feeling like SCOTUS sided with the other side against their preferred candidate.

 

[Frankenstein]

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.

Wrong, they will be ruling rightfully so only if Trump is left on the ballot. Which law will SCOTUS be refusing to adhere to Trump has not been even indicted for insurrection!

 

[22lcidw]

You do remember the Supreme Court being so dismissive of those claims that they refused to even hear Trump's case right...?

Say you have validity. Teh Supreme Court has near half the nation that has taken a lot of needless demeaning and destruction from the other half and their power agendas and are losing patience. Trump is not a radical. And he did not diss any group as President. The abortion issue was returned to the states. It still exists.

 

[Frankenstein]

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

Only because the Colorado court was ruling based solely on political bias!

 

[forkup]

Why does the high court need to hear arguments?

Dont they already know the answer in advance?

Since its assumed that there is only one correct answer to every legal question we really dont need the dog and pony show that judges engage in

No judge will ever assume there's only one correct answer to every legal question. If there was SCOTUS themselves would be unnecessary.

 

[NoVote]

If a state can remove a name from a ballot, that is extremely bad news for the stinktards. Lookee here;

Red states and blue states - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Looks like a lot more red than blue. If buy dungs name is not on the ballot, the tards are too stoopid to write it in. HAHAHA

 

[Billiejeens]

You do remember the Supreme Court being so dismissive of those claims that they refused to even hear Trump's case right...?

They did not dismiss those claims.
Nor could they have.

 

[Billiejeens]

What coup? Do you mean the valid, certified election that was challenged in court, and when those challenges were dismissed further challenged by extralegal means including a violent storming of the Capitol?

It does kind of make my point though. The moment SCOTUS decided to hear the case (not that they really had a choice) they inserted themselves into a fight that will end up with one side feeling like SCOTUS sided with the other side against their preferred candidate.

Nope

Followed by

Nope

 

[Natural Citizen]

The usual suspects will rule the way that they usually do.

 

[Curried Goats]

Say you have validity. Teh Supreme Court has near half the nation that has taken a lot of needless demeaning and destruction from the other half and their power agendas and are losing patience. Trump is not a radical. And he did not diss any group as President. The abortion issue was returned to the states. It still exists.

Are you capable of a coherent point? I didn't really have an issue with the legal reasons the Supreme Court used to over turn Roe vs. Wade. I don't think people should mistake that as an example of this Court being radically right wing. Its right wing for sure but not radically so. In fact I've been impressed by Roberts ability to keep the far right in relative check.

 

[Curried Goats]

They did not dismiss those claims.
Nor could they have.

They rejected the entire case outright. Didn't even think it merited being heard by the court.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

That wasn't a yes or a no.

 

[Billiejeens]

They rejected the entire case outright. Didn't even think it merited being heard by the court.

Which you have totally misinterpreted all of this time, with no hope of ever understanding it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Which you have totally misinterpreted all of this time, with no hope of ever understanding it.

Then explain it to me. Do you imagine their rejection as some sort of affirmation of all of Trump's claims? How does that work?

 

[Delldude]

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.

Opinions. So being practical would be preventing Trump from being on the ballots?

SCOTUS interprets the law.

Good example- SCOTUS did an end around on the 10th with R v W........took 50 odd years but it was corrected.

 

[Delldude]

Why does the high court need to hear arguments?

Dont they already know the answer in advance?

Since its assumed that there is only one correct answer to every legal question we really dont need the dog and pony show that judges engage in

That's quite funny........so you favor the rule of men over the rule of law......interesting.