Supreme Court rejects long-shot case to disqualify Trump from 2024 election

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a long-shot bid to challenge former President Donald Trump's eligibility to run for the White House in 2024 over his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

"The Supreme Court can deny to hear the case but appellate courts cannot," he wrote Monday on X, formerly Twitter, after the high court's announcement. "I'm still pursuing decisions in the liberal appellate courts and there's a full blown trial scheduled for October 20 in New Hampshire and a bench trial in Arizona on October 31."

The Supreme Court's decision to not hear Castro's case comes as activists have attempted to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot by invoking the 14th Amendment, which bans politicians from holding some public offices after having taken an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and then having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion."

I'm still operating under the notion that since there is no conviction, let alone charge for a violation of the statute, that a case like this can not go forward.

Lets follow the logic in another way.

Since felons are not allowed to own firearms, if by the very nature of me saying someone is a felon, does that then disqualify them from owning firearms?

Silly, right?


This strategy was hatched from the legal scholars believe it or not!

Link

If they spent the time and money they spend on trying to get Trump homelessness in America could be solved....

a reply to: JinMI

Since felons are not allowed to own firearms, if by the very nature of me saying someone is a felon, does that then disqualify them from owning firearms?

Owning a fire arm is a constitutonal right. Being President of the United States isn't.

It's not a question of conviction. It's a question of Due Process.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not being able to serve as President of the United States, while sad, is not a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property". So, Due Process isn't required, therefore, a conviction after Due Process isn't required either.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Owning a fire arm is a constitutonal right. Being President of the United States isn't.

No? Then what is this?

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It's not a question of conviction. It's a question of Due Process.

That would be the part where I mentioned silly things like statutes and convictions Sookie.......

a reply to: JinMI

No? Then what is this?


No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It's been amended to also include this:

The Disqualification Clause
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

crsreports.congress.gov...#:~:text=No%20Person%20shall%20be%20a%20Senator%20or%20Representative,given%20aid%20or%20comfo rt%20to%20the%20enemies%20thereof.

That would be the part where I mentioned silly things like statutes and convictions Sookie.......

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, Im aware. So it is a right to run for president.

Except if the qualifiers exist. In this case, insurrection.

Of which is a federal statute that Trump is not convicted of nor even charged of.

So, by the petitioners logic, merely saying someone did a thing equals application of that thing.

Its a stupid argument.

It's an interesting campaign strategy the Democrats have invented. When will the Republicans adopt it too; they always seem to be late to innovate, just look how cute they are trying to make ballot harvesting a tool they can use too.

It's the right call. The Constitution makes it clear that states are responsible for running their own elections. Therefore, these challenges should be made at the state level.

I believe the case in Colorado will be the first to go to trial and Trump's lawyers seem to be taking it seriously.

a reply to: dandandat2

As far as I'm aware, all of the challenges that have been made so far have actually been made by Republicans.

a reply to: dandandat2

It's an interesting campaign strategy the Democrats have invented.

So-called republicans "invented" it.

When will the Republicans adopt it too...

The only real republicans (read conservative) are at the grass roots level. The minority that still exist at the federal level are nearly powerless against the democrats, rino's, and the administrative state. The republicans are going to do nothing but sit, stay, and rollover when they are told.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI
Not being able to serve as President of the United States, while sad, is not a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property". So, Due Process isn't required, therefore, a conviction after Due Process isn't required either.

Excellent lefty reasoning sookie, you never cease to provide us with lots of laughs and entertainment!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI
It's been amended to also include this:

The Disqualification Clause
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability

Its funny, but when you read that very closely, it very very carefully and specifically does not mention the office of President. It specifies Senators or Representatives, Electors for the P and VP,. but does not include the President. Yes, it then follows up with 'any office', but it is simply ludicrous that they would name all of those other offices but omit the office of President, and expect anyone to believe that the highest office in the land was to be included in a generic follow-up.

So, thanks for clarifying that the disqualification clause doesn't actually apply to the office of the President.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Mental gymnastics

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, Im aware. So it is a right to run for president.

Except if the qualifiers exist. In this case, insurrection.

Of which is a federal statute that Trump is not convicted of nor even charged of.

So, by the petitioners logic, merely saying someone did a thing equals application of that thing.

Its a stupid argument.

Give it a minute JinMi. Jack Smith, if that's even his real name, isn't finished yet!

And, it seems that any 'ole state AG or state SOS can accuse Trump of insurrection, of at the very least, of giving aide and confort to the enemies of the USA, and refuse to allow Trump's name on the ballot.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI
Not being able to serve as President of the United States, while sad, is not a deprivation of "life, liberty, or property". So, Due Process isn't required, therefore, a conviction after Due Process isn't required either.

Excellent lefty reasoning sookie, you never cease to provide us with lots of laughs and entertainment!

You should read the link that I provided above. It would help you sus out your confusion and make more coherent arguments.

Due process is not required??
How'd that work out for Hitler and Lenin??
a reply to: Sookiechacha

a reply to: JPhoenix

If I recall correctly, both Hitler and Lenin took people's life, liberty and/or property.

In this case, nobody's life, liberty and/or property is being threatened through this invocation of the 3rd Section of the 14 Amendment.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: tanstaafl

Mental gymnastics

Yes, good description for Sookie's post...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
You should read the link that I provided above. It would help you sus out your confusion and make more coherent arguments.

I read it, no change. The words in the clause are plain, and plainly do not exclude the office of President, when it clearly and easily could have, and in fact did single out Senators, Representatives, Executives of a State, etc, but omotted the Office of President.

Of course it is unsurprising that lefty's read it the way they want to.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Owning a fire arm is a constitutonal right. Being President of the United States isn't.

Being eligible is.

It's not a question of conviction. It's a question of Due Process.

Why yes, yes it is, and due process requires one be convicted of a crime before they can be punished for a crime.