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

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

Trump is thinking...

“Dang, I’m glad I packed that Court”.

a reply to: pianopraze

Ya beat me!!!

From my thread:

The Supreme Court on Friday announced it would hear former President Donald Trump's appeal of a Colorado Supreme Court decision to disqualify him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment.

Oral arguments will take place on Feb. 8, the Washington Post reported.

Link

I feel like this was inevitable. Not because there's a lingering question of Constitutionality, but because there exist people out there who are blinded by irrational hatred that it clouds their judgement and critical thinking. The logic also takes a dive when you get to the meat of what this case would represent and the multitudes of other Constitutional violations it would allow for.

My position here has been crystal clear.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Due process is REQUIRED before removal of civil liberties.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Which they have done. It exists in the statute 18 USC 2383

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

But before that, you will need to impeach him, which has already happened and he was acquitted. That pretty much ends the process.

SCOTUS understands how important it is to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Petitioner's brief is due in 10 days. Respondent's brief is due 13 days after. A reply to that five days later. Oral arguments scheduled for February 8th. For SCOTUS, that is moving at warp speed.

Lets hope both sets of cheerleaders accept whichever verdict is given

I just read where the liberals are now claiming all SC Justices appointed by Trump must recuse themselves.

a reply to: RickinVa

a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

There's compelling arguments for both sides. So no matter which side they go with there are visible legal arguments to support the position. That said Alina Habba going on TV and reminding Kavanaugh that Trump appointed him so he should do Trump a solid does cloud the legitimacy of any decision in Trump's favor.

a reply to: RickinVa

I've only seen people calling for Thomas to recuse himself since his wife was involved in J6 and Trump's plans to overturn the election.

a reply to: Threadbarer

There is nothing logically compelling coming from those who would remove liberties without due process.

a reply to: JinMI

It’s become a Tribal fight… almost literally.

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

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

There's compelling arguments for both sides. So no matter which side they go with there are visible legal arguments to support the position. That said Alina Habba going on TV and reminding Kavanaugh that Trump appointed him so he should do Trump a solid does cloud the legitimacy of any decision in Trump's favor.

No it actually doesn't. Not even a little bit. It's irrelevant. It's a democrat move or a paid shill move to go public and say something as "stoooopid" as that, so the payers can gloat and claim that it's legitimacy is now clouded. It's the same move we have been seeing over and over again from Trump hating prosecutors, politicians, and the idiots in Hollywood.

The ruling should be overturned fairly quickly.

There was no insurrection.
He was never charged with insurrection, never convicted of insurrection.

He was acquitted of having any role in the very minimal violence (that was instigated by federal agents and informants) that occurred that day during the 2nd sham impeachment.

originally posted by: RickinVa
I just read where the liberals are now claiming all SC Justices appointed by Trump must recuse themselves.

I believe that has been the goal of the Colorado decision from the beginning. The four radical judges on the Colorado Supreme court could care less if Trump was on the ballot in the blue state. And its clear the ruling will not stand up in the SCOTUS (even the fully liberal Colorado court was split on the ruling)

The goal all along has been to make the SCOTUS rule in favor of Trump in a highly publicized case so that the Democrats can make the case that they must pack the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS is protecting a man who planned and executed an insurrection for heaven's sake we must pack the court to save Democracy!

a reply to: Dandandat3

Bingo....

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You're saying that Trump's personal lawyer is a shill?

a reply to: pianopraze

I'm making a prediction right now.

If the Supreme Court goes one way, there will be riots.

If the Supreme Court goes the other way, there will be riots.

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.

a reply to: Threadbarer

So far every judge that has had a 14th Amendment case before then has ruled that Trump took part in an insurrection.

Cool.

Except Trump has never been indicted for insurrection.....


Here is the daft logic I mentioned.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: UpIsNowDown2

There's compelling arguments for both sides. So no matter which side they go with there are visible legal arguments to support the position. That said Alina Habba going on TV and reminding Kavanaugh that Trump appointed him so he should do Trump a solid does cloud the legitimacy of any decision in Trump's favor.

No it doesn’t unless you're a low IQ individual.

There are separation of power in the appointment of SCOTUS judges and appointment for life for a reason.

SCOTUS judges have no motivation to work for the president that appointed them.

The fact that we hear which president nominated which judge all the time is a manifestation of our sensationalist news media. It's a completely irrelevant point.