US Supreme Rejects Case - Donald Trump Eligible to Run for Office in 2024

a reply to: knoxie

In 2016, the libs were so giddy with the idea of running against the easily-beatable Orange Buffoon that they practically paved the way for his nomination. How did that turn out?
Unlike their supporters, the Dems in charge are smart enough have learned their lesson and to not allow it to happen again.
Otherwise he wouldn't be the target of every democrat BS Du Jour attack running up to 2024.

Understand?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: knoxie

Sorry, the status quo will not be coming back.

And , most likely , liberal nonsense.
Well, except for a few hardcore liberals as is being witnessed.

a reply to: underpass61

Devils advocate.

Have the voting integrity issues been fixed?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Threadbare

The OP Title says.....SCOTUS Rejects case.

They RULED on it, but, as you can see, in my OP I refer to it as rejected. How else would you describe it.

You're misunderstanding that, friend. That's not what that means.

Rejecting to rule on a case is not the same as ruling on it. What the Supreme Court is saying is that they are not ready to take this up yet.

They have the option to take up a case even if it doesn't come to them from lower courts, they can also reach down into lower courts and simply pluck a case if they feel like it; in this case they don't want it yet.

What they are doing on this one is throwing it back down, and anyone who wants to find out how this ends will have to be patient and wait for them to take it up.

a reply to: Threadbare

Speaking of cases at the state level, Trump made a filing in the Colorado case for why it should be thrown out. It's not because he hasn't been found guilty of insurrection. Oh no. His argument is that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President because the Constitution never explicitly states that the President needs to support the Constitution.

a reply to: JinMI

Absolutely not - that's yesterday's news (until Trump breaks the algorithm BIGLY this time).

originally posted by: TacoLoco75
a reply to: matafuchs
I really don’t understand how anyone thought this would not be the outcome. Are people that full of hate for President Trump that they are grasping at straws and throwing at the dart board with a blindfold on?? Get a life.

Ummm.... yes? Where have you been the last 7 years?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: Threadbare

His argument is that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the President because the Constitution never explicitly states that the President needs to support the Constitution.

Well, I strongly doubt that is what it says in the filing, but if it does, I'm sure you can linky to it?

a reply to: Threadbare

You're absolutely right and the American people realize what you said is correct that's why you have a dictator in the oval office.
That SOB is nothing but a freaking Dictator that is destroying the American fabric of life liberty and justice all because everyone knows him and his son is well you know I mean the guy took a shower with his daughter right and his son who knows what he's done.
He is literally taking down America all these single men coming from all over the world you think they're there in America to bring peace and love and harmony and beautiful marriages with American wives come on guys wake up they're there to really destroy America but what they don't realize one thing is that the Hell's Angels ain't going to put up with none of that bs

originally posted by: Mahogany
a reply to: matafuchs
They have the option to take up a case even if it doesn't come to them from lower courts,

No, they don't. The hear cases under two different jurisdictions: Appellate, and Original.

That said, I think a strong case can be made that the Supreme Court does have original Jurisdiction if a case is properly structured and plead, under the 'disputed between the States' clause of the Constitution.

So, it would have to be framed with respect to some States putting Trump on the ballot and others not doing so.

they can also reach down into lower courts and simply pluck a case if they feel like it; in this case they don't want it yet.

No, they can't. They can however, intervene at the request of one of the parties if said party makes a direct appeal, but they would do so under very limited circumstances.

What they are doing on this one is throwing it back down.

No, they simply refused certiori, which simply means the original decision stands... for now.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: matafuchs
John Anthony Castro who is running for president as a Republican stated that based on the 14th Amendment Donald Trump should not be allowed to run for office. We have heard this from many states who are scared and do not want him on the ticket. We have heard this from the pundits. The Media. Former DC Operatives. Former Elected Officials. Sitting Elected Officials...well.

It's over.

Link

The Supreme Court has rejected the case. This means, based on that ruling and since there was no merit to use the 14th Amendment there was no....

Insurrection.

I am sure there are those who will say but but but...this is good news and again shows that sane people know there was no insurrection.

I do not know if that is the Case concerning the Charges of Insurrection . I am sure the Dems are trying to do a Work Around on that .

It’s to the point now where they will just have 10 more people file it again in different states.
As well as announce that the ruling doesn’t apply to them and they will go ahead as they originally planned.

Welcome to the mentally ill world of 2023 democrats.

Bottom line. The SCOTUS ruled to reject the case. There is precedent with the 14th Amendment in the lower courts with MLG. Let the states try to oppose the Constitution.

Ultimately the court made the correct decision. A person can be accused of, can be a suspect of, can be held for a crime, but the bottom line of the justice system is this: A person is presumed innocent, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

So far there has not been any sort of trial, where the defendant Donald Trump, stands accused and been found guilty of something that would preclude him from running and holding a federal office. Until there is a conviction, he is innocent of the charges.

a reply to: matafuchs

The MTG ruling is only precedent in Georgia Superior Court.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

SCOTUS didn't make any such ruling. They refused to hear the case because the challenge hadn't gone through the lower courts.

a reply to: Threadbare

The bottom line is that SCOTUS's history shows us that THEY will not be the ones defining what constitutes as an "insurrection". They keep telling us that they don't make the laws, they only uphold them. So, expect SCOTUS to come out AGAIN to say that it is up to Congress to try and define it. In other words, if people don't like it, either don't vote for him or impeach him.

a reply to: Threadbare

I see. So, in court, a lawyer can only use a case that was made in his own state as a precedent? Just wondering on your answer here.

from the Cornell lawbook....

A ruling is a court's decision on a matter presented in a lawsuit. A ruling could refer to a judgment, which can be final or non-final. A ruling could also refer to a court's decision on a party's motion or application for a writ.

A ruling. The SCOTUS made a ruling and it said they reject the case. There was nothing else. Per CNN...

The case was denied without any comment or recorded vote.

To be honest, we have NO idea why they rejected it because they did not release a statement.

Ill be grabbing my Popcorn this election. If democrats are stupid enough to run Biden, Trump may actually win. He was pretty funny during his last speech. Literally had a nickname for everyone he talked about.

a reply to: Threadbare
That is exactly what the SCOTUS is saying. There has been no trial, thus Trump is innocent, and thus eligible.

a reply to: Mahogany

You know how this site it. Just like the thread in the fraud case. There are no shortages of Trump cheerleaders here that will support and defend him til the end.

It looks like Colorado's 14th Amendment case is moving quickly, this is the one where Trump's defense is he "had no obligation to support and defend the Constitution as president".

We both know eventually the Supreme Court will here the argument, while the folks who believe the OP will either be silent or cry foul wrongly claiming 'double jeopardy '.

I can many here are already declaring fraud will prevent Trump from winning 2024 also.