SCOTUS to hear arguments on keeping Trump off 2024 ballot

[Rambunctious]

In Trump’s case—as with the paradigm case of Floyd—there exists a complex web of spidery actions and inactions, as the trial court below made clear in its findings of fact. Especially because some of Trump’s own actions of plotting and incitement prompted actual violent insurrection by others, he was under a stronger duty to take affirmative steps to arrest that insurrection once it erupted into a deadly assault on the Capitol. It was perfectly sensible for the trial court to consider Trump’s entire course of conduct, including his inactions, as a whole

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

"Trump’s own actions of plotting and incitement"

That's BS.... that can not be proven... LMAO

 

[Winston]

"Trump’s own actions of plotting and incitement"

That's BS.... that can not be proven... LMAO

Actually, it most certainly can. I mean come on, you can't, for weeks, ask supporters to come out and protest, protest that they don't go through metal detectors, stand in front of them and rile them up, send them on their way and then proclaim your innocence.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This Court is thus not the only decisionmaker in a complex electoral-college system. States have wide discretion in structuring their systems, both procedurally and substantively. See Hassan v. Colorado, 495 F. App’x 487 (10th Cir. 2012) (Gorsuch, J.) (“[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”). In many ways, state courts, and not this Court, are the main backstops. See Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. at 34–37

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

Yes, of course, Winston, and SCOTUS, not you, will make that decision.

 

[Rambunctious]

Actually, it most certainly can. I mean come on, you can't, for weeks, ask supporters to come out and protest, protest that they don't go through metal detectors, stand in front of them and rile them up, send them on their way and then proclaim your innocence.

Wait a second.... so its now not just the J6 speech?... how far are you going to stretch this BS charge?... the Supreme court will be 9-0 in Trump's favor when they review it...

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

taking him off the ballot this late in the game is interfering in an election.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

BTW, don't forget that we currently have a NaziCon Republican SCOTUS.

you mean along with those nazilibs sitting besides them?....

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

taking him off the ballot this late in the game is interfering in an election.....

That will be the Court to make that decision.

 

[Lakhota]

I strongly believe that the NaziCon SCOTUS justices are too afraid of Trump supporters to rule against him. We shall see...

 

[Lakhota]

Hillary Clinton believes the best SCOTUS remedy is leaving it up to the states. That's ok with me, even though I think he should be banned on all states' ballots.

 

[Lakhota]

Amen!

 

[Harry Dresden]

That will be the Court to make that decision.

is it interfering or not john?....they should have tried this when he announced he was running...now its kinda late and it looks political at this point....

 

[San Souci]

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?

The 14th should be scrapped. Crappy Amendment.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

is it interfering or not john?....they should have tried this when he announced he was running...now its kinda late and it looks political at this point....

No, it does not. Trump has interfered with the elections by refusing to follow the law or outright breaking it.

He will the Colorado case, but the immunity case will go against him, and he will go to trial.

 

[Lakhota]

‘Judged by history’: Trump’s 14th Amendment fight at Supreme Court poses an enormous test for John Roberts​

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, it does not. Trump has interfered with the elections by refusing to follow the law or outright breaking it.

He will the Colorado case, but the immunity case will go against him, and he will go to trial.

yes it is john.....

 

[Lisa558]

No, it does not. Trump has interfered with the elections by refusing to follow the law or outright breaking it.

He will the Colorado case, but the immunity case will go against him, and he will go to trial.

So that means that the families of the 13 dead soldiers can sue Biden.

 

[Frankenstein]

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

So a bunch of Democrats decided Trump can't run, for no other reason than they don't like him, got it!

 

[Frankenstein]

No, it does not. Trump has interfered with the elections by refusing to follow the law or outright breaking it.

He will the Colorado case, but the immunity case will go against him, and he will go to trial.

How did he do either of those things, was he ever convicted of either, yeah didn't think so

 

[JLW]

Why hasn't the corrupt Clearance Thomas recused himself? His wife was involved in the rebellion.

 

[Lakhota]

Well, they're hard at it. What will be the outcome?