On the one hand, I understand why people think SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor.
On the other hand, they did NOT rule for the Independendent State Legislature theory. Which I think people were surprised about. It was sold as a necessary step for our descent into true minority GOP rule. And SCOTUS didn't accept it.
Why would they miss a chance to cement that lever of GOP rule and then take this one? Isn't SCOTUS the exact conservative group that have ZERO incentive to bow down to Trump? Perhaps in fear of their own lives? But wouldn't the knowledge of their own hostage situation mean they would want to fight this somehow?
This is the GOPs opportunity to find it's way out of the Trump Wilderness and you'd think the oligarchs, if they really do own the judges, would discard Trump and try again in 2028.
Unless of course Kavanaugh et al really are directly being blackmailed by Trump. But then again, why didn't they accept the ISL theory when we all thought they would?
I would add to this... I'm not convinced they would lose in 2024. If they kept Trump off the ballot, Haley could naturally step in and say she would pardon Trump (wouldn't get him reinstated or anything really, but I don't think his supporters would read past "pardon").
Then all of the sudden you might actually get a revved up MAGA crowd behind someone like Haley, who appeals way more to the center.
It's not far fetched that she could give Biden a hard time, particularly now that they'd play the age card as much as possible. I've been saying this from the beginning... This is the Trump off-ramp in a way that doesn't damage any elected officials. They can all be outraged and angry publicly, and they fits their narrative very nicely.
If Trump gets kicked off the ballot, the road for Democrats in 2024 gets harder, not easier, in my opinion.
Trump croaking would be the best thing that could happen for the GOP establishment (the ones that remain anwyays). Being disqualified before super Tuesday is the second best outcome for them.
I disagree. Trump will run as an independent if he's disqualified, and he'll split the fascist vote the Haley. Of course votes for him won't count, but they'll still be votes Haley doesn't get.
.... He can't run at all if he's kicked off the ballot.
And he won't rally people against Haley or she'll pull the "I Won't Pardon You" card.
Trump always operates in his own selfish best interest. And his interest will quickly become do what he can to get Haley elected. It'll be his only out.
He can do all the usual things candidates do when they campaign. The only difference is his name won't be on the ballot. That won't stop his cult from attempting a write-in campaign.
I disagree. Trump will run as an independent if he's disqualified, and he'll split the fascist vote the Haley. Of course votes for him won't count, but they'll still be votes Haley doesn't get.
I don't really know the conservative Justices' true situation as far as bribery, kompromat, activism, or whatever the hell else. They have made some rulings that don't track with being totally bought and paid for by pro Trump entities and willing to cavalierly burn it all down in Trump's service.
Actually, I get the impression they are unwilling to make rulings that will result in mass legal chaos, such as ruling in favor of the Independent State Legislature Doctrine argument they recently all but nullified.
Or another example, that Presidents and former Presidents are immune from prosecution which would toss many, many rulings over a wide span of time into the trash can and basically enable any president, not just Trump, to do whatever the fuck they wanted while simultaneously kneecapping the judiciary. (I'm assuming here that they don't believe Trump is guaranteed to become president for life).
My guess is that they will rule in such a way that doesn't break all kinds of things, make them look like a laughingstock, and also provide other states with a slam dunk to remove Trump from their ballots.
They will consider the argument of CO SC breaking Colorado law outside their jurisdiction (to avoid breaking everything), support the ruling that President is an officer of the US (to avoid looking like absolute clowns and also breaking everything). Beyond that idk.
There was no insurrection and Trump certainly wasn't behind it. Cope and seethe. People already preparing themselves to blame SCOTUS when their fantasy falls apart. Leftists love to label people and invent fantasy tales in their minds to justify why they're so depressed and angry. Meanwhile back in reality Trump is about to be President again and Biden is mentally unsound. It doesn't matter how many times the media, Democrats, and deranged leftists try to claim they came within an inch of the US government being overthrown by Q shaman getting secret orders from Trump. It never happened.
You can't even keep your own talking points straight. If there wasn't an insurrection, you didn't need to clarify that Trump wasn't behind it.
Did you have to take an inordinate amount of lsd? Or are you part cat and your body has an organ that produces hallucinogenics?
Being you must really be hard sometimes. Hopefully you can get the help you need and eventually get out of whatever hospital you are (hopefully) locked down in.
I don't know that for a fact but that's what I choose to believe. I've watched enough cats chase after literally nothing that they have to be hallucinating.
For those that didn't read the article, just wanted to point out that the author still states that it's very unlikely that the stacked Supreme Court will rule against Trump.
The funny part is that Gorsuch ruled clearly against Trump’s position in a lower court decision, and it is going to be funny to watch him just make himself known as hypocrite as he overrules his own ruling it is effort to be a Trump sycophant.
Oh man... So the supreme court is going to say anyone can be on the ballot without regard for eligibility?
Or just that states are not authorized to assess the eligibility of a candidate?
In that case, at which point during the process do we stop an intelligible candidate from taking office? After half the country voted for him? Seems silly.
As election law scholar Rick Hasen writes, “the arguments that Trump has advanced in his most recent brief are weaker and more hedged than I would have expected,” and “it’s hard to know exactly where the court goes from here,” given this meager performance by the former president’s attorneys.
Trump, in other words, is asking the Court to open a Pandora’s box that it slammed shut after hearing widespread alarm from across the legal profession — including some of the conservative movement’s most dedicated activists.
The plaintiffs challenging Trump’s eligibility point to myriad evidence indicating that, by the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the term “officer of the United States” was understood to include the president.
It would be extraordinary if the Supreme Court ruled that this alleged, penny-ante citation error so “exceed[s] the bounds of ordinary judicial review” as to justify invoking the independent state legislature doctrine — a doctrine the Supreme Court has rejected many times over the course of a century and that it recently rejected after an array of retired generals and admirals warned the justices that it threatens national security.
If the justices rule that the Colorado decision must be tossed out because of a minor error in the court’s construction of state law, that would do nothing to resolve the broader question of whether Trump is disqualified under the 14th Amendment.
Brandenburg involved a speech at a Ku Klux Klan rally, attended by “12 hooded figures, some of whom carried firearms,” where a speaker said that “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.” Yet, even though this speech advocated violence against the highest US officials, the Court tossed out the law used to prosecute this speaker, holding that a state cannot punish “mere advocacy” of violence, but only “imminent lawless action.”
The original article contains 3,137 words, the summary contains 319 words. Saved 90%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
